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

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

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

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

section 111A on short term capital gains were both denied. 7. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the transactions must be considered by themselves, while applying the tests to determine whether they are investments or adventure in the nature of trade. It is urged that the PMS agreement, by its terms alone or by the fact of agency being handed

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

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

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

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 or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

2 of 5 of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956. 4. The Assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Exclusive Properties

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2). Now, applying that test to the facts here, the company actually commenced business only on the 1st of November, 1946, when it purchased a ground-nut oil mill and was in a position to crush ground-nuts and produce oil. But prior to this there was a period when the business could be said to have been

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

253(SC) 8. The counsel analyzed various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (UP) subsidy scheme to say that the earlier scheme of 1982 was expanded in 1985 ITA 315/2003 & connected cases Page 9 of 27 to promote industrial development in the State. Thereafter, in the year 1990, various elements of the existing scheme were subsumed and a new subsidy regime