THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

29-03-2004 passed in PANiGTR No.AAACB7258A / v-oo4 on the fire of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome-Tax, Circle-3(4), Hyderabad. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lll, Hyderabad ...Appellant AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HoN,BLE SRIJUSTICE #,Oo,o*o", RAJESHWAR RAo M/s.V.B.C.Ferro Alloys Ltd, 6-2-gj 3/914, 3d Floor, progressive Towers

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

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

29) was omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 by reason of the amendment. By the same amendment, an Explanation was inserted below Section 10(20) and, thereafter, Section 10(20) reads as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property”, “Capital gains

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

29) was omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 by reason of the amendment. By the same amendment, an Explanation was inserted below Section 10(20) and, thereafter, Section 10(20) reads as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property”, “Capital gains

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains in the impugned assessment year for the sum of Rs.14 crores. That the AOP had not submitted itself for taxation or the failure of the AOP to make a return of income, would not shift the tax incidence to its members. Especially so, since charging Section 4 of the Act in contrast to Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains" and  shall be deemed to be the income of such person  of the previous year in which such money or other  asset   was   received   and   for   the   purposes   of  section 48, value of any money or the fair market  value of other assets on the date of such receipt  shall   be   deemed   to   be   the   full   value

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains" and  shall be deemed to be the income of such person  of the previous year in which such money or other  asset   was   received   and   for   the   purposes   of  section 48, value of any money or the fair market  value of other assets on the date of such receipt  shall   be   deemed   to   be   the   full   value

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains" and  shall be deemed to be the income of such person  of the previous year in which such money or other  asset   was   received   and   for   the   purposes   of  section 48, value of any money or the fair market  value of other assets on the date of such receipt  shall   be   deemed   to   be   the   full   value

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

29,50,000 shares solcl to SWL. 'l'ribunal iunher held that the entire transaction rles a shlrn trilrraction entered into onlyto avoid payrnent of thc tax due. l.i. I Iow-eve r, Tribunal held that capital gains tax coulcl not be levicd on the shares under lock-in-period or under pledgc. In other uords, capital gairu tax could

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

29,769/- from the Chopanki Unit was not allowed to be set off from the income of other units. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter “CIT (A)”). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s position and findings holding that: ITA 386/2013 Page 3 ―4.5 Thus, it may be seen that

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

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F of the Act on the ground that she holds more than one residential unit. 27. We also find that there has been no failure on the part of the Assessee to truly and fairly disclose all the material facts in her return. The Assessee had fairly disclosed about the sale of the original asset, in respect of which

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

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

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 by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority affirmed the penalty thereafter the Second Appellant Authority by order dated 15.07.2020 set aside the penalty

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indus Business System Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

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

Capital gains tax for A.Y. 2007-08. The law on the point with regard to the transfer of shares in this case, is governed by Section 108 of Companies Act, 1956 which reads as follows: I.T.A No.410/2017 C/W I.T.A No.409/2017 9 "108. TRANSFER NOT BE REGISTERED EXCEPT ON PRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER (1) A company shall not register

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S New Asian Bar AND Restaurant,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Capital gains tax for A.Y. 2007-08. The law on the point with regard to the transfer of shares in this case, is governed by Section 108 of Companies Act, 1956 which reads as follows: I.T.A No.410/2017 C/W I.T.A No.409/2017 9 "108. TRANSFER NOT BE REGISTERED EXCEPT ON PRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER (1) A company shall not register

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter