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-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45.  (1)  Any profits   or gains  arising  from  the  transfer   of   a   capital   asset   effected   in   the  previous  year  shall,  save  as otherwise  provided  in  sections 54,  54B,  54D,  54E,  54EA,  54EB,  54F,  54G  and  54H,   be   chargeable   to   income­tax   under  the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to  be the income of the previous year in which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45.  (1)  Any profits   or gains  arising  from  the  transfer   of   a   capital   asset   effected   in   the  previous  year  shall,  save  as otherwise  provided  in  sections 54,  54B,  54D,  54E,  54EA,  54EB,  54F,  54G  and  54H,   be   chargeable   to   income­tax   under  the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to  be the income of the previous year in which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45.  (1)  Any profits   or gains  arising  from  the  transfer   of   a   capital   asset   effected   in   the  previous  year  shall,  save  as otherwise  provided  in  sections 54,  54B,  54D,  54E,  54EA,  54EB,  54F,  54G  and  54H,   be   chargeable   to   income­tax   under  the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to  be the income of the previous year in which

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

The appeal is dismissed

section 45, the condition precedent is, (1)there should be a distribution of capital assets of a firm; 9 (2)such distribution should result in transfer of a capital asset by firm in favour of the partner; (3)on account of the transfer there should be a profit or gain

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-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains can be computed under Section 45. Electricity and phone connections were taken by M/s.MAPL with the intention to start business, which was a non starter, and ultimately ended up in rescission of contract. The learned counsel for the assessee points out that there is no recital in the agreement for sale produced at Annexures-A and B regarding possession

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) read with 2 (14), 2 (11) 9b), 48 and Section 55 (2) (ii) of the Act. The combined reading of the above provisions and of section

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 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 IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

3) to (6) of sub-section 10B, more particularly, clause (ii) of sub-section (6) and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and ITAT, Chennai, the losses of eligible units are to be set off against the profits of such eligible units in the subsequent years.‖ ITA 386/2013 Page 4 5. The ITAT, which the assessee

Smt. Rama S. Gummadi vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

3 supra), Section 45 deals with capital gains. Section 47 deals with transactions not recorded as transfer. It enumerated different

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

capital gains are ta-xable in the hands of se[ers er.en for the shares which are in lock-in-period. Here assessee is holding 86,100 shares ior utich he received 80,100 X 43:Rs.i/.02.100. cepital eains on v,rhich are taxable". 22. \When this finding of the assessins officc'r ."ras cl.ralltnged beiore the first appellate authority

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

3. The facts of the case are that the Assessee, (who died during the pendency ITA No. 299/2003 Page 2 of 5 of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas

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

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

3 The assessing ofrrcer disagreed with the assessee and a show cause notice dated 23.03.2001 was issued to her p roposing to complete the assessment under Section 144 of the Act after determination of the long term capital gain arising out of the transaction at Rs. l3,7g,gOO/_. The assessee submittecL a reply on 03.04.200 l, wherein

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

capitalized the annual income and, thus, worked out the loss of dependency at ` 2,25,000/- and added ` 75,000/- awarded by this Court besides ` 75,000/- awarded further by the Supreme Court in the matter of R.K. Malik (supra) to grant ` 3,75,000/- as compensation. 52. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance companies