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

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

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 - 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

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

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, that profits and gain if any, arising on transfer of capital by way of distribution of capital assets, assets is assessable in the hands of the AOP only and not in the hands 47 of its members. The settlement deed practically put an end to the AOP and transfer of title in the land

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

gains”. Similarly, the assessing authority noticed that one of the partners Sri Mahesh G. Shetty had introduced Rs.40 Lakhs as capital in the appellate firm. On going through the capital account of the partner, the assessing authority found that there was no mention about this amount. Therefore, the assessing authority treated this as an unexplained cash credit under Section

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5) of Section 115JB, the application of other provisions of the Act are open, except if specifically barred by the Section itself. The indexed cost of acquisition is a claim allowed by Section 48 of the Act to arrive at the income taxable under the income from capital gains. The difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition

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, 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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5 \\?s rtccived by the xsessee and the co-promoters r'r,ith share certiliciltes Lrruig clelivered to the transferees. 10. \Vhen thc' order of the assessing officer was challenged befon' the fust appellate auhority ;.a., C.ommissioner oi Income Tax (,\ppcals). the first appellate authoriry upheld the decision ot the esscssing officer on both aspects i.e., sale consideration per share

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

The appeal is allowed

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

gain (something) as the result of request or effort (Shorter Oxford Dictionary). In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161 IPC, which, as noticed

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

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

45 deals with capital gains. Section 47 deals with transactions not recorded as transfer. It enumerated different types of transfers which are not recorded as transfer. One such transfer by way of disbursement of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals or other association of persons is included in Clause(ii) thereto

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

capital asset in the assessment year lgg7 _gg and consequently no profit or gain accrued to the assessee in order to attra(:t Sections 45 and Section 4g of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of thr: Supreme Court in Seshasayee Steels private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

5. In the return filed for Assessment year 1992-93 the Assessee claimed that she did not have any residential house. She offered to tax capital gains arising from the transfer of the 40% rights to the builder in terms of Section 54 F read with Section 45

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

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 by a cooperative bank from deposits, whether or not they are made in discharge of a statutory obligation or otherwise being income from banking business, would be eligible for exemption under the said provision