The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by the revenue, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.39,86,424 when assessing authority

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

capital gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

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

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

44 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'144, Road No.2 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND N Subash, S/o N.M.Choudary, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'198, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..,DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT C|TY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 120 ot 2O13 Regular Appeal under Section g6 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

44 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'144, Road No.2 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND N Subash, S/o N.M.Choudary, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'198, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..,DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT C|TY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 120 ot 2O13 Regular Appeal under Section g6 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated

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

44 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'144, Road No.2 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND N Subash, S/o N.M.Choudary, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'198, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..,DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT C|TY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 120 ot 2O13 Regular Appeal under Section g6 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

capital asset, the assessee also claims depreciation say @ 20%. Accordingly, the assessee claims that the application of income would include Rs.10,000/- which is to be allowed as depreciation as to this extent, the asset purchased has depreciated. In other words, Rs.60,000/- is to be treated as application of money for the purpose of clause 'a' to Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

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

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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