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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

26. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 makes it clear that income of every kind which is not be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to - - 50 income tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26. Once we conclude that there indeed was an AOP, the 2nd question is whether there was an incidence of capital gains. For answering this a look at section

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-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

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 45 of the Act, as betuecn thc tliulsf L'rols ind the uansferee, the transaction compietc s-hen the share cerdficates are handed or'.'r. It *;rs .rlso commented that the mere f,rct thet rhc conrpenl has not registered the transier ir-r its b,rols rv,.r1rld j11q1l1''\' the claim that the transfer tooli plece tlrlv lrter

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 250(4) of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to submit the Remand Report. The relevant extract of the remand report reads as under: “Addition as long term capital gain – Rs.2,94,26

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where.– (a) the assessee,– (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of the transfer of the original asset; or” 14. The AO held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

section 278(E) of the Act speaks of culpable state of mind. He further submits that there is allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have obtained Long Term 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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing

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

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

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

gain accrued to the assessee in order to attra(:t Sections 45 and Section 4g of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of thr: Supreme Court in Seshasayee Steels private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai r and decisions on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata_l vs. Infinity Infotech

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

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

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

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

gains, they should be treated as capital expenditure in the hands of the Assessee, was not based on sound reasoning. (iv) Expenditure on purchase of stock and trade is charged to the P&L and trading account at the time of purchase, which cannot be deferred. The observation of the AO that the Appellant was free to claim the deduction