M/S UNICORN AGRO TECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10 of the Act by Finance No. 2 Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005. Further the tribunal failed to consider that the short term capital gains from shares held as investment could not be assessed as business income merely because the period of holding of the shares in such cases was somewhat short as compared to other investments. Thus

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

section 1O in particularly clause 10.3 and 10.4 16. While passing the order the Tribunal obsened that, the following facts and issues have not been disputed by the Revenue: : (a) That the gain in question is a long-term capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

16 trademarks, brands, copyrights and the associated good will of Healthcare Journals & Communications business is also taxable as long term capital gain by virtue of section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gain was also assessed. According to the assessee therein, the possession of the land was handed over as only a licence to develop the land and not a possession as contemplated under Section 53A. The project was also terminated. The High Court accepted that argument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find it necessary to go into

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

16. In exercise of powers conferred by section 295 read with clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Board of Direct Taxes amended the Income-tax (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 substituting eligibility of Industrial Parks for benefits under section 80-IA(4)(iii). 17. The Apex Court

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

16. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The question to be answered by us are i) Was there any intention by the parties to form an AOP. ii) If there indeed was an AOP is there an incidence of capital gain. iii) If there indeed was an AOP would the non filing of return by such

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

section 111A on short term capital gains were both denied. 7. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the transactions must be considered by themselves, while applying the tests to determine whether they are investments or adventure in the nature of trade. It is urged that the PMS agreement, by its terms alone or by the fact of agency being handed

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections 276C, 277 and 278 read with Section 278B of the IT Act. The accused moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the prosecution, they were successful. The High Court quashed the prosecution

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections 276C, 277 and 278 read with Section 278B of the IT Act. The accused moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the prosecution, they were successful. The High Court quashed the prosecution

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where.– (a) the assessee,– (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of the transfer of the original asset; or” 14. The AO held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Capital Gain which is found to be incorrect. He submits that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 591 of 2017 by order dated 06.06.2018 which was challenged by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority affirmed the penalty thereafter the Second Appellant Authority by order dated 15.07.2020 set aside the penalty