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

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

capital has been provided by the government under Section 23(1) and the Government is only paid interest thereon under Section 28(1) just as interest would be paid on any money due as a debt. That the activity of the respondent Corporation is not carried on with the object of making profit is made abundantly clear by the provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

capital has been provided by the government under Section 23(1) and the Government is only paid interest thereon under Section 28(1) just as interest would be paid on any money due as a debt. That the activity of the respondent Corporation is not carried on with the object of making profit is made abundantly clear by the provisions

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

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

28,799/- made by the appellant on sale and purchase of shares was normal business profit and not short term capital gain as claimed by the appellant? 2. The appellant assessee is a public limited company in the business of granting loans and advances and also dealing in shares and units of mutual funds. The assessee invests in shares with

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

28,42,417/- as against Rs.39,12,24,944/-, the loss claimed for the year 2004- 05 of Rs.5,23,18,280/- was not allowable as the return filed for the said year was belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there

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

2-5. However, on the question as to u-hcthcr rsscssce r.as liable to capital gains tax in respect of the entirc sh'rrr- holtling of 86,0C0 shares or onlyin respect of 11,100 shares. Tribr.Lr.rel hcld rs [olloris: ::27 ii Ve accordingllr hold drat the capital gains tax cannot be levied in the assessrnent lear r-rnder appeal

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 INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

28-5-2001 and vide his medical examination report (Ext. P-22), an abrasion of the size of 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm on the corona of the penis was found. The body of the penis and glands therein were swollen and tenderness and inflammation was present. There was nothing 11 (2013) 5 SCC 722 36 to suggest that the appellant

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri Vinod Krishna Conjeevaram,

The appeal is dismissed

28,000/- and transferred it to the current accounts of the four partners proportionately consequent to reconstitution of assessee firm. The assessing authority felt that this good-will is chargeable to tax under the head “capital gains” and accordingly, brought it to tax as “long term 3 capital gains”. Similarly, the assessing authority noticed that one of the partners