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

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. VIJAYA BANK, HO: CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPT. 41/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 11/09/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/Bang/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. THIS I.T.A. COMING

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

gains; or (b) income of the nature referred to   in sub­clause (ix) of clause (24) of  section 2, and the assessee has paid the whole of the  amount of tax payable in respect of income  referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), as  the case may be, had such income been a part  of   the   total   income,   as   part

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

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

36 of the Act, which also deals with the aspect of deductions. Sub-section ('1 ) (iii) deals with the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession. The proviso explains that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset even

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

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 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

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 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36,836/- and total income of Rs.2,97,239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

capital of not less than five hundred thousand rupees; (iii) the hotel is for the time being approved for the purposes of this sub-section by the Central Government; (iv) the business of the hotel starts functioning after the 31st day of March, 1981, but before the 1st day of April [1991]. [(4A) This section applies to the business

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. Kamma Sangaham, vs. The Director of Income -Tax (Exemptions),

36(1)(iii) and Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Despite full disclosure of facts regarding loans given by the assessee to its subsidiary companies and source of funds, supported by documentary evidences, the assessing officer made addition in the income of the assessee on the presumption that the loan was given out of the borrowed