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

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

capital has been provided by the government under Section 23(1) and the Government is only paid interest thereon under Section 28(1) just as interest would be paid on any money due as a debt. That the activity of the respondent Corporation is not carried on with the object of making profit is made abundantly clear by the provisions

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act?" 2. ITA No.389/2007 filed by the Director of Income Tax, i.e. the Revenue, relates to AY 1999-2000 and impugns order dated 23rd June, 2006 passed by the tribunal in Appeal No.1167/Del/2005 deleting/cancelling penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) salaries, (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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

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

1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28— (viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

4 consultancy services to its customers who consist of both residents of India and non-residents. Shin provides these services through its satellite Thaicom 3, whose footprint covers a large geographical area, including India. In AY 2007-08 and 2009-10, the assessee filed NIL returns. The AO reviewed the return under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

section 10(23G) as per the provisions of the statute existing in 1997 read ',r'ith Explanation 2l mandates that income by way of long-terrrr capita-l gain ,rf al infrastructure capital Company from investments rnade before O 1.06. 1998, by way of "hrr-"" 'irt any enterprisr: r,,.hich is an infrastmcture facility, shall not 'a,i-- ' ;..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

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

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

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal substantially erred in law in holding that the gain of Rs. 29,28,799/- made by the appellant on sale and purchase of shares was normal business profit and not short term capital gain as claimed by the appellant? 2. The appellant assessee is a public limited company in the business of granting

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

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

Capital Gain is bogus. (iii).It has been further alleged that even subsequent to the said search, 3 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) of section 49], shall be taken to be nil” ITA 549/2011 Page 11 of 16 9. This provision clearly provides determining the cost of any relation to a capital asset being the right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business. 10. Once we accept the fact that the brand names

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal which - 6 - came to be dismissed. Hence, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section 80 of the Act by all the authorities

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

Appeals are dismissed

4)  of section 245D, the amount on which interest  was   payable   under   sub­section   (1)   or   sub­ section (3) has been increased or reduced, as  the   case   may   be,   the   interest   shall   be  increased or reduced accordingly, and­ (i) in   a   case   where   the   interest   is  increased,   the   Assessing   Officer   shall  serve on the assessee a notice of demand

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] are directed against the common order dated 30th July, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT’] in ITA 5947/Del./2018, ITA No. 4723/Del./2018, ITA No. 5954/Del./2018

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 PSK,J & LNA,J ITTA 500 2006 and batch was in violation of Section 1 1(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer had refused to grant exemption under Section 1 I to the appellants and passed the Assessment Order on 14.03.2O05. On account of the fact that the appellant company had made an iavestment

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

4 of Act is a charging section and provides for levy of income tax in respect of total income of the previous year of every person. Section 5 of the Act outlines the scope of total income and provides that the total income of a person who is a non-resident in any previous year includes income from whatever source

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital