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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 48, the 34 fair market value of the asset on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. The capital asset here, which was the land, could be considered as transferred to the AOP in the year in which assessee entered

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. Aditya Music (India) Ltd.

capital balance”, “to be considered for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act”, the Tribunal is right in law in not taking the findings to the legal and logical conclusion, holding that the same “is not the only criteria”, and is not the above approach and the findings in paragraph 12 of the order

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

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

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

capital gains to disallow interest on loan of purchase of property as deduction from sale consideration, to direct the Assessing Officer to adopt guidance value of sub registrar in respect of one property as deemed sale value and to bring to tax the difference and to allow deduction under Section 80C of the Act for an amount of Rs.1

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

Section 96 of C.P.C and Mernorerndum of Cross Objections filec cn behalf of Cross Objectors/Plaintiffs '1 to 4 Linde" Order 41 , Rule 22 of the Civil F'rccedure Code, 1908, against the Judgment an'l Decree dated 28.03.2013marleir l.S.No.ll5of2006onthefileoftheCourtoftheXlll Addl Chief Judge (FTC), City' C i'rrl Court at Hyderabad. Between: 1 N.Subhash, S/o. N.M.Choudary, Aged about

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 96 of C.P.C and Mernorerndum of Cross Objections filec cn behalf of Cross Objectors/Plaintiffs '1 to 4 Linde" Order 41 , Rule 22 of the Civil F'rccedure Code, 1908, against the Judgment an'l Decree dated 28.03.2013marleir l.S.No.ll5of2006onthefileoftheCourtoftheXlll Addl Chief Judge (FTC), City' C i'rrl Court at Hyderabad. Between: 1 N.Subhash, S/o. N.M.Choudary, Aged about

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

Section 96 of C.P.C and Mernorerndum of Cross Objections filec cn behalf of Cross Objectors/Plaintiffs '1 to 4 Linde" Order 41 , Rule 22 of the Civil F'rccedure Code, 1908, against the Judgment an'l Decree dated 28.03.2013marleir l.S.No.ll5of2006onthefileoftheCourtoftheXlll Addl Chief Judge (FTC), City' C i'rrl Court at Hyderabad. Between: 1 N.Subhash, S/o. N.M.Choudary, Aged about

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

capital was a common pool, out of which purchases/investments were made from time to time and were also sold. Therefore, the inference drawn by the fact finding authorities that the entire investment in tax free bonds were from the borrowed finance, is apparently incorrect and perverse. 12. In view of the facts aforenoted, the findings recorded by the ITAT

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 7.12.1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time

THE COMMR.OF INCOME TAX RAJHMUNDRY vs. M/S Y.RAMAKRISHNA AND ORS.

The appeal is allowed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning an order dated 3rd October, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 244(Del)/2001. ITA No. 244(Del)/2001 was an appeal preferred by the Assessee against a common order dated 3rd October, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income