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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4   of   the   paper   book,   wherein  assessee has annexed statement  showing details  of profits  and loss from shares for the year  under   consideration.   As   per   said   chart  consolidated sum of profits and loss shown by  assessee   in  respect   of   sale   and   purchase   of  Page 16 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT shares can be summarized as under: 1Long term profits

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4   of   the   paper   book,   wherein  assessee has annexed statement  showing details  of profits  and loss from shares for the year  under   consideration.   As   per   said   chart  consolidated sum of profits and loss shown by  assessee   in  respect   of   sale   and   purchase   of  Page 16 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT shares can be summarized as under: 1Long term profits

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4   of   the   paper   book,   wherein  assessee has annexed statement  showing details  of profits  and loss from shares for the year  under   consideration.   As   per   said   chart  consolidated sum of profits and loss shown by  assessee   in  respect   of   sale   and   purchase   of  Page 16 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT shares can be summarized as under: 1Long term profits

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

41 prosecution would have failed to discharge the duty cast upon it of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. That, however, was a case where the question before the jury was whether a presumption of the kind which in India may be raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be raised from

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

4. Section 41(1) of the Act specifically speaks inter alia of a deduction made in the assessment for any year in respect of a trading liability incurred by the ITA.No.248 of 2012 - 5 - assessee to be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income tax. In the subject assessment year, obviously

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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. For the facility of reference, facts from I.T.A.No.559/2015 are being referred

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

4. The factual background, in which the aforesaid questions of law arise for our consideration need mention, which are stated infra. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and also engaged in doing job works. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. For the facility of reference, facts from I.T.A.No.559/2015 are being referred

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

4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked up for scrutiny the Assessee‟s return for AY 1995-96 by an order-sheet entry dated 5th December 1997 required the Assessee to give the full details and addresses of the persons to whom the aforementioned compensation amounts were paid. The Assessee was asked to explain why the said amounts should

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked up for scrutiny the Assessee‟s return for AY 1995-96 by an order-sheet entry dated 5th December 1997 required the Assessee to give the full details and addresses of the persons to whom the aforementioned compensation amounts were paid. The Assessee was asked to explain why the said amounts should

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 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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials