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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

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

section 53A of the riansfer of Propertlz Act, 1882. It is pointed out that there is no transfer of capital asset in the assessment year lgg7 _gg and consequently no profit or gain

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

gains. 5. The Tribunal on reconsideration of the facts in their entirety, concurred with the view of the AO that as form No.7B was signed by both parties on 24.11.2009, the effective transfer as defined under Section 2 (47) of the Act has taken place on the said date. In that process, the Tribunal also took into consideration a letter

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s. Vipanchi Chit Fund Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

capital gain taken by the Assessing Officer?” 3. Insofar as the first proposed question is concerned, we find that certain properties were purchased between 08.02.2005 and 25.08.2005. The total purchase price of these properties, which were situated in village Kapashera, came to ` 1,06,58,000/-. This land was sold in its entirety to one A.B. Tower Private Limited

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains on transfers, to invest unaccounted money (`black money') and to avoid payment of `unearned increases' due to Development Authorities on transfer. 2. The modus operandi in such SA/GPA/WILL transactions is for the vendor or person claiming to be the owner to receive the agreed consideration, deliver possession of the property to the purchaser and execute the following documents