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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains,  accrued   by   sales   of   relevant   shares,   is  irrelevant for deciding the allowability or  otherwise of loss shown by the assessee on  alleged sale of these shares, as sales have  not   been   conclusively   established   by   the  assessee. 26.   In   view   of   above   discussion,   we   hold  that   as   assessee   could   not   establish   the  factum   of   sales   made   to   his/her   associate  concern

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains,  accrued   by   sales   of   relevant   shares,   is  irrelevant for deciding the allowability or  otherwise of loss shown by the assessee on  alleged sale of these shares, as sales have  not   been   conclusively   established   by   the  assessee. 26.   In   view   of   above   discussion,   we   hold  that   as   assessee   could   not   establish   the  factum   of   sales   made   to   his/her   associate  concern

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

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

capital of not less than five hundred thousand rupees; (iii) the hotel is for the time being approved for the purposes of this sub-section by the Central Government; (iv) the business of the hotel starts functioning after the 31st day of March, 1981, but before the 1st day of April [1991]. [(4A) This section applies to the business

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Globe Organics Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the revenue-respondent against the order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, has been partly accepted. Brief facts of the case are that

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

200'r-02) dated 22-12-2006 preferred against the order of the commissioner of rncome Tax (Appears), -Ir Hyderabad dated 30-03-2005 in rr.A. No. 213, 214 & 21s / Dcrr 2(r ) Hyd/ crr (A) lly 04-05 preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner of rncome tax, circle -2 (1), Hyderabad dated

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks such as: ‘expenditure’, ‘wholly and exclusively’ and ‘incurred

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

capital asset situate in India: [Explanation 1] –For the purposes of this clause—(a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

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