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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

gain shall be computed after making certain deductions from the full value of the consideration for which the sale, exchange or transfer of the capital asset is made. In case of a sale, the full value of the consideration is - - 54 the full sale price actually paid. The legislature had to use the words full value of the consideration because

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

57(iii) of the Act. 23 13. Section 115JB(5) of the Act reads as under: “(5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee being a company, mentioned in this Section.” Thus, by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 115JB, the application of other provisions

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

57 of 2002 IUDGMENT,T'er:L Hut.,L:r':C,L,r t.,,:: :. h :. !,:, Fleard Mr. M.Sridhar, leamed counsel for the appellant and I\G. K.Mamata Choudhary leamed Senior Standu.rg C-orurse I for the Income Tax Depanment appearing lor the responde nt. 2. This appeal has been iiled bv the assessce .1s rhe appellanr under Section

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

57(iii) of the Act. This view is further strengthened by the assertion of the assessee that admittedly the business in the controlling interest has not yielded any assessable income 15. On the other hand, the appellate authority had taken a view that the assessee's plea for deduction cannot be allowed in view of Section

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

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

57 TAXMANN.COM 439 (KARNATAKA). 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely Section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and Section 70 as well as the 10 para 5.2 of the Circular issued

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

capital asset situate in India: [Explanation 1] –For the purposes of this clause—(a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of provision for leave encashment written back and Rs.256.32 lacs on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, a contingent liability and its purported finding in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench

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

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

gain”. 3. The appellant as well as the company filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the same confirming the orders of the AO. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee has filed two appeals ITA Nos.642 and 782/Hyd/2002 for the assessment year 1998- 99 and 1999-2000 respectively, and the company filed ITA No.361/Hyd/2003

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

57 ' 1..l,:.abad , 2005 . lor assessment Year 200l-2001 'lat.'' '()-06-2006 prelened irsarrrst th0 r)t,.:.t t)f tlic Clon.rmissioner of lncome Tar ( Appcals I V ' I{:-derabad in lrppealNoltirrr'\l)lT(t'.)-llCIT(A)-IV/05-06dated08-()9-20()5prcl'erredagainstthe (.rr k'r t,l'tlt '. r. I)ilcclcr ol-Income Tax (E) ' tlydetabaC datcd