THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

31 judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The court must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal substantially erred in law in holding that the gain of Rs. 29,28,799/- 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

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

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital receipt and therefore both, section 11 (5) and Section 13 (l) (d) of the Act, would not be applicable. 15- Learned counsel appearing for the department on the other harrd justifying the order of the ITAT, contended that since the order of the assessing ofhcer has already been subjected to scrutiny and challenge, there is hardly any scope left

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

capital asset situate in India: [Explanation 1] –For the purposes of this clause—(a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains. v) If there was no AOP what was the date of transfer of subject property to M/s. Parkway Developments Pvt. Ltd., ie, whether such transfer was a) AT the time of MOU? b) At the time of principle agreement? c) At the time of settlement deed? 4 d) At the time of execution of conveyance deed? 17. Taking

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1{s.15l- p('r shrlr-r .rs claimed by the assessee. FIe accordinglv computecl thi: long tcnn capital gains. FIe funher held that nott-ithsurnding tlic lock-irrperiod and the pledge of shares, those mtst br' regaftlcd ls li.rving been sold or trarsferred within the rreaning of Section 2('17) of rlre Act as the entire consideration 5 \\?s rtccived

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

31-03-1989, relevant for the assessment year 1989-90, the return of income was filed by the respondent-assessee declaring Rs.53,93,390/- as income. The assessee manufactured and sold rubber patches for tyre, tubes, uniseals etc. By order dated 13-03-1992 the Assessing Officer inter alia held that deduction under Section 80-I could be allowed

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. 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-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

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

31 will be a permission to use confidential information, and in virtually in all cases it will be a permission to copy a copyright work. If the software has been kept secret by the producer, or only supplied on conditions of confidentiality and has not been published too widely, then the software licence will be akin to a licence

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, this Cr.M.P

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Capital Gain during the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15; and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to evade tax. A complaint was filed against the petitioner by the Union of India through the concerned officer being the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-II, Ranchi in the court of learned Special

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