Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

6], Commissioner of IT v Market Committee[7], Commissioner of Income Tax v Gujarat Maritime Board, Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1)[8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section

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

6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received by a cooperative bank from deposits, whether or not they are made in discharge of a statutory obligation or otherwise being income from banking business, would be eligible for exemption under the said provision. Does Section 80P(2

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

6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received by a cooperative bank from deposits, whether or not they are made in discharge of a statutory obligation or otherwise being income from banking business, would be eligible for exemption under the said provision. Does Section 80P(2

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

6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received by a cooperative bank from deposits, whether or not they are made in discharge of a statutory obligation or otherwise being income from banking business, would be eligible for exemption under the said provision. Does Section 80P(2

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

6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received by a cooperative bank from deposits, whether or not they are made in discharge of a statutory obligation or otherwise being income from banking business, would be eligible for exemption under the said provision. Does Section 80P(2

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2) (a) of the Act. The cost of acquisition of these assets was „Nil‟ and the consideration received on the sale of these intangible assets therefore, should be treated as long term capital gain. The AO, however, did not accept the aforesaid contention of the assessee. He examined the features of the agreement entered into between the assessee

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2) interest on securities, (3) income from property, (4) profits and gains of business, profession or vocation, (5) income from other sources and - - 32 (6) capital gains. This classification under distinct heads of income profits and gains is made having regard to the sources from which income is derived. Income-tax is undoubtedly levied on the total taxable income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 7.12.1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains' at the hands of the assessee, and confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the assessment and dismissing the appeal, which is not sustainable, is the submission. 6. Per contra, the assessee would contend that unless there is transfer of asset as envisaged under ITA 33/10 -7- Section 2

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 vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

6. It is vehemently contended that all these statutory obligations that were required to be followed by the assessee in accordance with the Companies Act were followed. The only objection raised by the Income Tax Authorities was that capital gains cannot be directly taken into the account of the capital reserve, first, it has to be included in 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