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. 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 of the taxpayer and the tax levied is a single tax on the aggregate taxable receipts from all the sources; it is not a collection

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

35 years, plot No. 77. I^9T-ul'" Coop. Housing Society, Road No. 7A, Jrbtie" r_r1lr, , nt;juio"o _ 500033. ( Appellate No. 2 to 4 are bro-ught on_record as LRS of the deceased Appelate No 1 vide C.O. dated 04-Ot_20i7 in ilTAMp No. I ;f 201S ) \\l) I l:e -ltrint ('.r,,rissio.er or'lnoome

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

gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise.lt should be noted, in this connection, that

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

Section 54 F (3) of the Act. It is not in dispute that she paid the long term capital gains tax computed on the above basis. 7. The return was picked up for scrutiny and on 18th March, 1996 the ITA No. 299/2003 Page 3 of 5 Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order in which, after setting

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

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indus Business System Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

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

35 Crores, the entire management of the Company was transferred in favour of Shri. G. Somashekara Reddy and Smt. G. Vijaya. Therefore, the AO has rightly held that assessees are liable to pay Capital gains Tax during A.Y. 2008-09. 8. Opposing the appeal, Shri. Parthasarathi submitted that what is relevant to hold an assessee liable for Capital gains

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S New Asian Bar AND Restaurant,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

35 Crores, the entire management of the Company was transferred in favour of Shri. G. Somashekara Reddy and Smt. G. Vijaya. Therefore, the AO has rightly held that assessees are liable to pay Capital gains Tax during A.Y. 2008-09. 8. Opposing the appeal, Shri. Parthasarathi submitted that what is relevant to hold an assessee liable for Capital gains

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. V.Ramachandra Rao

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

section 48(i) merely on the ground that the Appellant had not fulfilled a condition in a clause in the Share Purchase Agreement, without considering that the same expenditure had been allowed on identical facts and in identical circumstance in the hands of the other three shareholders who were parties to the same transaction. 2. Facts leading to filing

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

section in the 1922 Act was amended in 1939, allowance was given in respect of any non-capital expenditure „incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains.‟ Under the present law, the expenditure should be laid out „wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.‟ The two expressions are not ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section in the 1922 Act was amended in 1939, allowance was given in respect of any non-capital expenditure „incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains.‟ Under the present law, the expenditure should be laid out „wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.‟ The two expressions are not ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page

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

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

capital asset. 13 Para 5.2 of Circular dated 10.7.2013 The income computed under various heads of income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the IT Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the IT Act, 1961. This means that first the income / loss from various sources i.e., eligible and ineligible units

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, but the term “royalty” as defined and covered under Art VIII A of the DTAA. 7. Before we examine the relevant clauses of agreement dated 11th May, 1987 between HCL and ADC, it would be first appropriate to examine the ambit and scope of the term „royalty‟ taxable under Article VIIIA

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Globe Organics Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the revenue-respondent against the order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, has been partly accepted. Brief facts of the case are that