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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 12B(2) provides that the amount of a capital gain shall be computed after making certain deductions from the full

M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income from capital gain should be included for the purpose of computing Book Profit under Section

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

gains arising in respect of inuestments made before O1.A4.1997 are not eligiblefor exemptionu/s 1AQ3G) of the I.T.Act. (2) At the tirne of introduction of the Section pou)er generation projects are not brought into tl'rc ambit of Section 1O(23G). (3) The scope of exemption u/s 10(23G) utas u.tidened and long term capital

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2 that the appellant is liable to capital gains tax during the assessment year 1997 -98?" 3. Facts leading to hling of this appeal in nutshell are that the assessee is a Non Resident Indian (NRI). A notice under Section

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

Bench: The Learned

2 of 10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s. Vipanchi Chit Fund Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of ` 3,07,82,342/- by holding that profits from the sale of lands is not taxable under the head profits and gains of business or profession vis-à-vis capital gain taken by the Assessing Officer

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.2467/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital receipt and therefore both, section 11 (5) and Section 13 (l) (d) of the Act, would not be applicable. 15- Learned counsel appearing for the department on the other harrd justifying the order of the ITAT, contended that since the order of the assessing ofhcer has already been subjected to scrutiny and challenge, there is hardly any scope left

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 Kolkata was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowances of Rs.31.76 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of provision for leave encashment written back and Rs.256.32 lacs on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, a contingent liability

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

2 3 . ....t. L'l \i ' ,.,,,r . rncome. Further observed that, the deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act under the head of income from ,other sources, does not make the capital expenditure exclusively spent for the purpose of earning income and the expenditure craimed must be of the nature relating to earning of income, with a reflection

The Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) vs. WarangalWarangal Diocese Society

The appeals are dismissed, along with pending

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Capital Territory of Delhi were banned due to which there was a shortage of the mining materials and the rates of various raw materials were hiked by the mine lease holders. Another letter was sent by the Respondent to Appellant in the same regard showing the current and previous market rates and requesting the Appellant to increase the rates accordingly

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2.- For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head" Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited

The appeal is allowed setting aside

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

section 260A of the tncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 19-6-2009 passed in lrA.No.346t{ydto4 on the file of the tncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad bench ,A,, Hyderabad. Between: The commissioner of rncome Tax-ilr, r.T. Towers, A.c. Guards, Masab rank, Hyderabad AND ...Appeltant M/s. Sanghirextiles Limited, 4-3-3s2, Bank street, Koti

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 52 Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-8334002 (Jharkhand), ........... Respondents. ----- With