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

iii). It has been further alleged that even subsequent to the said search, false statement was made by the petitioner on examination on oath under section 131(1A) of the Act. (iv).It has been further alleged that the petitioner had even attempted to evade tax which attracts offence under section 276 (C) (1

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 to be the income of such

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 to be the income of such

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 to be the income of such

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains derived from the sale of their lands. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains derived from the sale of their lands. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains derived from the sale of their lands. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC], by which Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 4/21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel

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

iii). Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on record? (iv). Whether, without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article

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. 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

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

32 intellectual property embedded in the copy right and not a right in the copy right as such. Therefore the mode adopted or the terminology given is not decisive to decide the nature of transfer. Ultimately, it is the substance which has to be looked into.” 13. In the background of the aforesaid legal position, if we look at Cost

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 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