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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50  to 52 of the documents attached with the appeal  relating   to   Smt.   Sulochana   V   Gupta.   We   have  perused the copy of these vouchers which are self  prepared giving the particulars of credit amount,  number   of   shares,   rate   of   sale   and   name   of  company.   On   these   vouchers   neither   the  particulars of shares i.e. distinctive number nor  names of persons

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50  to 52 of the documents attached with the appeal  relating   to   Smt.   Sulochana   V   Gupta.   We   have  perused the copy of these vouchers which are self  prepared giving the particulars of credit amount,  number   of   shares,   rate   of   sale   and   name   of  company.   On   these   vouchers   neither   the  particulars of shares i.e. distinctive number nor  names of persons

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50  to 52 of the documents attached with the appeal  relating   to   Smt.   Sulochana   V   Gupta.   We   have  perused the copy of these vouchers which are self  prepared giving the particulars of credit amount,  number   of   shares,   rate   of   sale   and   name   of  company.   On   these   vouchers   neither   the  particulars of shares i.e. distinctive number nor  names of persons

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

50 income tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 specifically states that the incomes shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources. Clause (ii) of Section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

50,000 shares solcl to SWL. 'l'ribunal iunher held that the entire transaction rles a shlrn trilrraction entered into onlyto avoid payrnent of thc tax due. l.i. I Iow-eve r, Tribunal held that capital gains tax coulcl not be levicd on the shares under lock-in-period or under pledgc. In other uords, capital gairu tax could

Commissioner of Incoem Tax- 2, vs. M/s. Erythor Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(1) of the Act. The appellant along with others had owned an inherited property. The appellant and other members of the family had different and specific shares in the said property. All the co-owners have constructed a residential complex on the aforesaid land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and sold the flats

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where.– (a) the assessee,– (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of the transfer of the original asset; or” 14. The AO held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Capital Gain is bogus. (iii).It has been further alleged that even subsequent to the said search, 3 false statement was made by the petitioner on examination on oath under section 131(1A) of the Act. (iv).It has been further alleged that the petitioner had even attempted to evade tax which attracts offence under section

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indus Business System Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Capital gains tax for A.Y. 2007-08. The law on the point with regard to the transfer of shares in this case, is governed by Section 108 of Companies Act, 1956 which reads as follows: I.T.A No.410/2017 C/W I.T.A No.409/2017 9 "108. TRANSFER NOT BE REGISTERED EXCEPT ON PRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER (1) A company shall not register

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S New Asian Bar AND Restaurant,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Capital gains tax for A.Y. 2007-08. The law on the point with regard to the transfer of shares in this case, is governed by Section 108 of Companies Act, 1956 which reads as follows: I.T.A No.410/2017 C/W I.T.A No.409/2017 9 "108. TRANSFER NOT BE REGISTERED EXCEPT ON PRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER (1) A company shall not register

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

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

50)/R-2/CIT-GNT/2006-07, dated 12.12.2006 rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act. It may be mentioned that the applications made by eleven other AMCs in Prakasam District were also rejected by separate orders passed on the same date. AMC then filed I.T.A.No.268/Vizag/07, before the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal. This appeal and appeals filed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

50)/R-2/CIT-GNT/2006-07, dated 12.12.2006 rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act. It may be mentioned that the applications made by eleven other AMCs in Prakasam District were also rejected by separate orders passed on the same date. AMC then filed I.T.A.No.268/Vizag/07, before the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal. This appeal and appeals filed

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

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

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

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

50,000/-; we repeat rest all remains same. Ordinarily, mere change of price alone may not amount to novatio. It is more so when there is a tacit understanding between the parties that for all practical purposes, higher price should be kept in consideration and only for the limited purpose of saving stamp duty, capital gains tax, etc., the official

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 50