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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT Explanation.—For   the   purposes   of   this   sub­ section, the expression "insurer" shall have the  meaning assigned to it in clause (9) of section 2  of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938).” 12. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has  arrived   at   finding   of   fact   and   the   findings  arrived

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT Explanation.—For   the   purposes   of   this   sub­ section, the expression "insurer" shall have the  meaning assigned to it in clause (9) of section 2  of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938).” 12. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has  arrived   at   finding   of   fact   and   the   findings  arrived

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT Explanation.—For   the   purposes   of   this   sub­ section, the expression "insurer" shall have the  meaning assigned to it in clause (9) of section 2  of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938).” 12. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has  arrived   at   finding   of   fact   and   the   findings  arrived

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

27. On careiul consideration trl. thc order passed bythe Tribunal as discussed above, u'e do not lincl ;rnv eror or inJinnirv in the approach adopted b1-the Tril,un.rl to uamrnt inter-ference under Section 260-A of the Act. ()n rhc point of quantificadon of the rice @ Rs.4ll- per slr.1n.. rhcre is conclrrent finding of fact

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27 meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2 (14) (iii) of the Act and affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

27 meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2 (14) (iii) of the Act and affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

27 meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2 (14) (iii) of the Act and affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains

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 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(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F of the Act asserting that the consideration received from the sale of shares of FIITJEE Ltd. — an unlisted company, the gains from which would otherwise be chargeable to tax as capital gains — was invested in acquiring a residential house property bearing the address E- 27

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

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

capital gains tax during the assessment year 1997 -98?" 3. Facts leading to hling of this appeal in nutshell are that the assessee is a Non Resident Indian (NRI). A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to her. In response to the said notice, assessee filed return of income on 27

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

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

27. In so far as Question No.2 is concerned, according to the Tribunal Section 80I of the Act uses the phrase 'derived from' and hence the interest Page 6 of 14 O/TAXAP/186/2003 JUDGMENT received by the assessee from its trade debtors cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing profits derived from an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal

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