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

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

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

ii). It has been alleged that during course of search and seizure operation, it was found that the petitioner had claimed huge Bogus Long Term Capital Gain during the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment Year 2014- 15 and during the course of Post Search Investigation, the petitioner was even examined on oath under section

M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(III) BANGALORE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(2),BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E R INDRAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL & E I SANMATHI.ADV.) 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1012/BNG/2007, DATED 07/10/2008 CONFIRM THE ORDERS

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

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 issue that requires consideration is when

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii)  riot or civil disturbance; or (iii)  accidental fire or explosion; or (iv)  action by an enemy or action taken in  combating an enemy (whether with or without a  declaration of war), then, any profits or gains arising from receipt  of such money or other assets shall be chargeable  to income­tax under the head "Capital gains" and  shall be deemed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii)  riot or civil disturbance; or (iii)  accidental fire or explosion; or (iv)  action by an enemy or action taken in  combating an enemy (whether with or without a  declaration of war), then, any profits or gains arising from receipt  of such money or other assets shall be chargeable  to income­tax under the head "Capital gains" and  shall be deemed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii)  riot or civil disturbance; or (iii)  accidental fire or explosion; or (iv)  action by an enemy or action taken in  combating an enemy (whether with or without a  declaration of war), then, any profits or gains arising from receipt  of such money or other assets shall be chargeable  to income­tax under the head "Capital gains" and  shall be deemed

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ii) for the service and benefit of the construction and allied industries by creating awareness, imparting training for increasing its relevance to the national level and also ensuring quality to the international standards. The mission statement of the Society also was on similar terms which were primarily to develop the technological advancement in the competitive construction industry which serves India

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 45 of the Act, as betuecn thc tliulsf L'rols ind the uansferee, the transaction compietc s-hen the share cerdficates are handed or'.'r. It *;rs .rlso commented that the mere f,rct thet rhc conrpenl has not registered the transier ir-r its b,rols rv,.r1rld j11q1l1''\' the claim that the transfer tooli plece tlrlv lrter

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

1)(c) were to be initiated and third, that the claim for rebate under Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since no evidence of the Securities Transaction Tax paid was furnished. It was reasoned that the purpose of a portfolio manager was to optimize returns of the investor. Since the motive of the transactions was the earning

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.1376/Bang/2008, dated 17-07-2009 and confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order 14 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1), International Taxation, Bangalore. These appeals coming on for Hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

Capital of only Rs.2000/- and did not even have a bank account on the date of entering into the Agreement. They submit that even the amount of Rs.1.25 lac stated to have been deposited with the L&DO was infact paid by Mr.R.Ganguly and not by the petitioner. They submit that therefore, the petitioner was neither ready nor willing

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

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

ii; H"yd,:rab rd ... APPELLI\NT/ PLAINTIFF AND N Vijayalaksh^ri Wio N M ghgqd|rary,.gSed about _ yerrs, )cc Housewife, R/o Ptor No 1!rJ Road No -14, Jub;te;'Hil;;yl"ilt"o .., RESPONDEN,I-l DEFENDANT ctTY CtvtL COUFIr ITPPEAL No: 81 of 20O2 Regurar l\pcear under Section g6 0f c.p.c against the Jucgment

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

ii; H"yd,:rab rd ... APPELLI\NT/ PLAINTIFF AND N Vijayalaksh^ri Wio N M ghgqd|rary,.gSed about _ yerrs, )cc Housewife, R/o Ptor No 1!rJ Road No -14, Jub;te;'Hil;;yl"ilt"o .., RESPONDEN,I-l DEFENDANT ctTY CtvtL COUFIr ITPPEAL No: 81 of 20O2 Regurar l\pcear under Section g6 0f c.p.c against the Jucgment