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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

55 TTJ (Ahd) 625, (iv)  CIT v.  L.N. Dalmia  reported in  207 ITR 89 (Cal.),  and thereafter, held as under: “22. As the onus was on assessee and it has  not   been   discharged   by   producing evidence   which   in   case   of   genuine  transaction   could   well   be   proved   by  producing   evidence   in   this   regard,   the  Page 11 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT transactions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

55 TTJ (Ahd) 625, (iv)  CIT v.  L.N. Dalmia  reported in  207 ITR 89 (Cal.),  and thereafter, held as under: “22. As the onus was on assessee and it has  not   been   discharged   by   producing evidence   which   in   case   of   genuine  transaction   could   well   be   proved   by  producing   evidence   in   this   regard,   the  Page 11 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT transactions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

55 TTJ (Ahd) 625, (iv)  CIT v.  L.N. Dalmia  reported in  207 ITR 89 (Cal.),  and thereafter, held as under: “22. As the onus was on assessee and it has  not   been   discharged   by   producing evidence   which   in   case   of   genuine  transaction   could   well   be   proved   by  producing   evidence   in   this   regard,   the  Page 11 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT transactions

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

55,802/- as long term capital gain in terms of Section 54 F (3) of the Act. It is not in dispute

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

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Capital gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. (2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under Sections 48 to 55

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

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

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from other sources at Rs.1,55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

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 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Globe Organics Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the revenue-respondent against the order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, has been partly accepted. Brief facts of the case are that

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

Capital Gains Taxes under the Development Agreements dated 24'11' 1993' This letter was written after Income Tax raids were conducted in the premises of the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao on 23.02.1996 and O3'O4'1996 This letter is a ciucial document and discussed in ' the later part of the judgment. 33. Revised plans were issued on 07.04.1997 in the name

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital Gains Taxes under the Development Agreements dated 24'11' 1993' This letter was written after Income Tax raids were conducted in the premises of the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao on 23.02.1996 and O3'O4'1996 This letter is a ciucial document and discussed in ' the later part of the judgment. 33. Revised plans were issued on 07.04.1997 in the name

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

Capital Gains Taxes under the Development Agreements dated 24'11' 1993' This letter was written after Income Tax raids were conducted in the premises of the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao on 23.02.1996 and O3'O4'1996 This letter is a ciucial document and discussed in ' the later part of the judgment. 33. Revised plans were issued on 07.04.1997 in the name

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order