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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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 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

Section 10 of the Act by Finance No. 2 Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005. Further the tribunal failed to consider that the short term capital gains from shares held as investment could not be assessed as business income merely because the period of holding of the shares in such cases was somewhat short as compared to other investments. Thus

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains at that point of time. Article 1 to 4 of the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2004 is reproduced hereunder: Article I- Assignment: 35 (1) The FIRST PARTY confirms that in pursuance to the development Agreement they have permitted the SECOND PARTY to carry out construction/ development on the Schedule Property. The SECOND PARTY is entitled to continue

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 INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

35 facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.‖ The abovesaid view taken by this Court fully supports the case of the appellant. In view of the contradictions noticed by us above in the depositions of key witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, we are of the view that

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

2(24) ofthe Act to include profits and gains, dividends, voluntary payment received by trust, etc. It may be noted that profits and gains are generally used in terms of business or profession as provided u/s. 28. The word " income ", therefore, is a much wider term than the expression profits and gains of business or profession ". Net receipt after deducting

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

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

2 of 5 of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956. 4. The Assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Exclusive Properties

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

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 RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

2 to 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2)(l). We find no infirmity in the ruling of ARR on this aspect. In the above situation, MSCo is rendering services through its employees to MSAS. Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a service PE in India ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 54 of 85 (MSAS). Accordingly, the civil appeal

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure A-9) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.57/ASR/2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. 3. Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary, are that respondent- Revenue on 17.07.2007 conducted search at different premises