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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

sections 54,  54B,  54D,  54E,  54EA,  54EB,  54F,  54G  and  54H,   be   chargeable   to   income­tax   under  the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to  be the income of the previous year in which the  transfer took place. (1A

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

sections 54,  54B,  54D,  54E,  54EA,  54EB,  54F,  54G  and  54H,   be   chargeable   to   income­tax   under  the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to  be the income of the previous year in which the  transfer took place. (1A

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

sections 54,  54B,  54D,  54E,  54EA,  54EB,  54F,  54G  and  54H,   be   chargeable   to   income­tax   under  the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to  be the income of the previous year in which the  transfer took place. (1A

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

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

Capital Gain during the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment Year 2014- 15 and during the course of Post Search Investigation, the petitioner was even examined on oath under section 131(1A

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

1A) was lawfully imposed by the assessing officer and the ITAT has correctly dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the point of imposition of interest. Discussion and Finding:- Substantial Question of Law No.1 7. In the assessment order, the assessing officer has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture, supplies, exports

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in relation to any profits and gains derived by an assessee from— (i) an industrial undertaking which begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or to operate its cold storage plant or plants; or (ii) a ship which is first brought into use; or (iii) the business of a hotel which

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains on transfers, to invest unaccounted money (`black money') and to avoid payment of `unearned increases' due to Development Authorities on transfer. 2. The modus operandi in such SA/GPA/WILL transactions is for the vendor or person claiming to be the owner to receive the agreed consideration, deliver possession of the property to the purchaser and execute the following documents

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became