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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. For the purposes of sub­clauses (v) and (vi),  “immovable property” shall have the same meaning  as in clause (d) of section 269UA. 2.   For   the   removal   of   doubts,   it   is   hereby  clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be  deemed   to   have   always   included   disposing   of   or  Page 26 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT parting with an asset or any interest

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. For the purposes of sub­clauses (v) and (vi),  “immovable property” shall have the same meaning  as in clause (d) of section 269UA. 2.   For   the   removal   of   doubts,   it   is   hereby  clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be  deemed   to   have   always   included   disposing   of   or  Page 26 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT parting with an asset or any interest

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. For the purposes of sub­clauses (v) and (vi),  “immovable property” shall have the same meaning  as in clause (d) of section 269UA. 2.   For   the   removal   of   doubts,   it   is   hereby  clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be  deemed   to   have   always   included   disposing   of   or  Page 26 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT parting with an asset or any interest

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

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

41. In the aforesaid context, it would be appropriate to assume that the Equipment Contract was performed by Nortel Canada - as has been held by the AO and CIT(A) and concurred with by the ITAT - and on that footing, it is to be examined whether any income from supply of equipment could be taxed under the Act. 42. Section

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.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 9 provides for the income deemed to accrue or arise in India. It reads as under: “9(1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India- (i) all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through

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 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

1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business. (a) Purpose of Business- Before the corresponding section in the 1922 Act was amended in 1939, allowance was given in respect of any non-capital expenditure „incurred

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

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

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

1, the distinction between the expressions “for the purpose of earning profits‟ and „for purpose of the business‟ was brought out as under: “11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business. (a) Purpose of Business- Before the corresponding section in the 1922 Act was amended in 1939, allowance was given in respect of any non-capital expenditure „incurred

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