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

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 45 Capital gains. “45.  (1)  Any profits   or gains  arising  from  the  transfer   of   a   capital   asset   effected   in   the  previous

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 45 Capital gains. “45.  (1)  Any profits   or gains  arising  from  the  transfer   of   a   capital   asset   effected   in   the  previous

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 45 Capital gains. “45.  (1)  Any profits   or gains  arising  from  the  transfer   of   a   capital   asset   effected   in   the  previous

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

capital gain by virtue of section 55 (2) (a) read with clause (i) of the proviso to Section 28 (va). The AR has also relied on the provisions of section 45 (1

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri Vinod Krishna Conjeevaram,

The appeal is dismissed

capital assest is transferred to a partner which results in profits or gains, then that income is chargeable at the hands of the firm under this provision. In order to attract sub-section (4) of section 45, the condition precedent is, (1

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is exigible to income tax for short term capital gains in the assessment year 1999- 2000? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case: (i) In the light of the law relating to part performance (Sec.2(47)(v) of the Income

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45(4) of the Act are necessary. These sections are reproduced hereunder:- 33 Sec.45(3) : The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co- operative society) in which he is or becomes a partner

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

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

capital asset situate in India: [Explanation 1] –For the purposes of this clause—(a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

capital gains; or (b) income of the nature referred to   in sub­clause (ix) of clause (24) of  section 2, and the assessee has paid the whole of the  amount of tax payable in respect of income  referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), as  the case may be, had such income been a part  of   the   total   income

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1 th.rr in tlre case of ransfer of shrrres for pLuposes of Section 45 of the Act, as betuecn thc tliulsf L'rols ind the uansferee, the transaction compietc s-hen the share cerdficates are handed or'.'r. It *;rs .rlso commented that the mere f,rct thet rhc conrpenl has not registered the transier ir-r its b,rols

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received