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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

30. No doubt, asseessee itself had returned capital gains in the impugned assessment year, considering the land to have been transferred by it, in the relevant previous year. In our opinion, however this cannot help the case of revenue. Just because an erroneous admission of income had been made it would not make the asseessee liable

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

gains tax cannot be levied in the assessrnent lear r-rnder appeal ir relation tt, th* shares under lock-in-penotl .rn,l/ol rrnder pledge. In other u.ords, the capirrrl g:rins trx can be levied only in relation to 11,100 shares as di-sck>sed b1'the assessee and not on 85,100 shares as done

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

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

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains

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

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

30). The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the intention of the Legislature in deleting Clause (29) of Section 10 and introduction of Section 10 Sub- clause (20) itself shows that the Legislature did not want to extend the benefit of exemption to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. This argument is without any force because Sections

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

30). The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the intention of the Legislature in deleting Clause (29) of Section 10 and introduction of Section 10 Sub- clause (20) itself shows that the Legislature did not want to extend the benefit of exemption to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. This argument is without any force because Sections

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 also, a similar argument

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

30 to 43D which includes depreciation under section 32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided under section 29 of the Income-tax Act. However

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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