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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2) interest on securities, (3) income from property, (4) profits and gains of business, profession or vocation, (5) income from other sources and - - 32 (6) capital gains. This classification under distinct heads of income profits and gains is made having regard to the sources from which income is derived. Income-tax is undoubtedly levied on the total taxable income

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

capital gain should be included for the purpose of computing Book Profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3 3. Facts in brief are: The appellant/company was incorporated on 3.2.1992 with an object to commence business of running a hotel. It transpires that for this purpose, it had purchased a land measuring 2 acres 32

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

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 (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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

2-5. However, on the question as to u-hcthcr rsscssce r.as liable to capital gains tax in respect of the entirc sh'rrr- holtling of 86,0C0 shares or onlyin respect of 11,100 shares. Tribr.Lr.rel hcld rs [olloris: ::27 ii Ve accordingllr hold drat the capital gains tax cannot be levied in the assessrnent lear r-rnder appeal

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

section 111A on short term capital gains were both denied. 7. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the transactions must be considered by themselves, while applying the tests to determine whether they are investments or adventure in the nature of trade. It is urged that the PMS agreement, by its terms alone or by the fact of agency being handed

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

32. However, that difference in this case would not result in altering the tax liability. It is not necessary in this particular case to go into the further details of this question as to what extent the skimmed milk has been used as raw materials and to what extent the milk has been used as an article other than

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

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

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

2. 5. Cr.M.P. No.591 of 2017 has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Special Sub-Judge-VII, Economic Offence, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 07 of 2016/Eco. Off. Case No. 7 of 2016 for the offence under sections 276C (1), 277 and 278E of the Income

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

gain”. 3. The appellant as well as the company filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the same confirming the orders of the AO. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee has filed two appeals ITA Nos.642 and 782/Hyd/2002 for the assessment year 1998- 99 and 1999-2000 respectively, and the company filed ITA No.361/Hyd/2003