The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(15), mean activity undertaken with a view to make or earn profit. Profit motive is determinative and a critical factor to discern whether an activity is business, trade or commerce. The court further held : 22. Business activity has an important pervading element of self interest, though fair dealing should and can be present, whilst charity or charitable activity

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if in the opinion of the Income Tax Officer the fair market value of a capital asset transferred by an assessee as on the date of the transfer exceeds the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee in respect of the transfer of such capital asset

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

capital gain by virtue of section 55 (2) (a) read with clause (i) of the proviso to Section 28 (va). The AR has also relied on the provisions of section 45 (1) read with 2 (14), 2 (11) 9b), 48 and Section 55 (2) (ii) of the Act. The combined reading of the above provisions and of section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2(47)(ii), (v)and (vi) of the Act. Long term 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

capital gain in the profit and loss account. Section 211 of the Companies Act contemplates, form and contents of balance sheet and profit and loss account. Sub-sections 3(A),3(B) and 3(C) of Section 211 provides that every profit and loss account and balance sheet of the company shall comply with the accounting standards, where the profit

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 Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate from the Tahasildar, Devanahalli, stating that the distance was 11 kms. A letter under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Tahasildar to furnish the shortest possible distance, but there was no response. On verification of google

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate from the Tahasildar, Devanahalli, stating that the distance was 11 kms. A letter under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Tahasildar to furnish the shortest possible distance, but there was no response. On verification of google

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate from the Tahasildar, Devanahalli, stating that the distance was 11 kms. A letter under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Tahasildar to furnish the shortest possible distance, but there was no response. On verification of google

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 of an infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7"t daA of June, 1998 bg utay of shares or long-terrn finance in ang enterprise carrying on th.e business of deueloping, maintaining and operating ang infrastructure facilitg shalL not be included and the prouisions of this clause as it stood immediately before