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

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

22 and 24) Applying the tests laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, there can be no doubt that the object of the market committees (assessees) established under the 1963 Act is to regulate the entire marketing of agricultural and some other produce from the stage of procuring till

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

E N T This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A” relating to the assessment year 2003-04. 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

2(22)(e) of the Act and the tribunal ought to have appreciated that there is no material to prove that loans /advance was granted to the assessee on behalf of or for individual benefit of shareholder. It is further submitted that share premium amount can also be considered for the purpose of accumulated profits, since, there is no specific

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2(22)(e) of the Act and the tribunal ought to have appreciated that there is no material to prove that loans /advance was granted to the assessee on behalf of or for individual benefit of shareholder. It is further submitted that share premium amount can also be considered for the purpose of accumulated profits, since, there is no specific

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

E) dated t2rth October,799B. 22. When doubts arise about whether long-term capital gains exempt under section 10(23G) are available, the CBDT has clarified the issue through a press release, resoiving the matter. Therefore, the question of exemption under section 1O(23G) is no longer a concern, as correctly observed by the Income Tai Appellate Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi Ram 14,79,185/- - MR Kodanda Ram 26,56,39,400/- 12,76,910/- MR Ananda Ram 28,81,44,630/- 13,31,150/- MR Prabhavathy 2,95,93,980/- 47,74,140/- MR Sampangiramaiah 7,58,98,280/- 6,25,560/- MR Padmavathy Trust 7,79,704/- - I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi Ram 14,79,185/- - MR Kodanda Ram 26,56,39,400/- 12,76,910/- MR Ananda Ram 28,81,44,630/- 13,31,150/- MR Prabhavathy 2,95,93,980/- 47,74,140/- MR Sampangiramaiah 7,58,98,280/- 6,25,560/- MR Padmavathy Trust 7,79,704/- - I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi Ram 14,79,185/- - MR Kodanda Ram 26,56,39,400/- 12,76,910/- MR Ananda Ram 28,81,44,630/- 13,31,150/- MR Prabhavathy 2,95,93,980/- 47,74,140/- MR Sampangiramaiah 7,58,98,280/- 6,25,560/- MR Padmavathy Trust 7,79,704/- - I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E N T The appellants-Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following question of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.14 Crores made under the head capital gains when the settlement agreement reveals there was an agreement for outright transfer

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(+7) of the Act for the pu4roses of computation o[ 7 gains tax accordingly. On the balance 75,000 shares rurder lock-in- period or tLnder pledge, libeny qranted t,-, the revenue \\-i1S authorities to lery capital gains tax in the relevant assessment )ear after expiry of the lock-in-period or after No Objection Crniiicate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

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

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

22. It is submitted that the impugned order cannot alter the order dated 27th August, 2010 by which the Joint APLs were appointed and therefore, the directions were issued in Sub-Para (a), (b) and (c) in the impugned order enforcing the APLs' decision by majority and recognizing the power of the Joint

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

gain”. 3. The appellant as well as the company filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the same confirming the orders of the AO. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee has filed two appeals ITA Nos.642 and 782/Hyd/2002 for the assessment year 1998- 99 and 1999-2000 respectively, and the company filed ITA No.361/Hyd/2003

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

E N T HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE APPEARANCE:- Mr.J.L.Purohit, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Rajeev Purohit & Mr.Ajay Purohit & Mr.S.K.Bissa, CA, for the petitioner-Assessee. Mr.V.K.Mathur with Mr.Dinesh Godara for the respondent- Revenue/Department. <<>> S.B.Civil VAT Revision Petition No.381/2006 M/s.Pali Zila Dughdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd, Pali-Marwar Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Pali Marwar & 07 other connected matters