M/S UNICORN AGRO TECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10 of the Act by Finance No. 2 Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005. Further the tribunal failed to consider that the short term capital gains from shares held as investment could not be assessed as business income merely because the period of holding of the shares in such cases was somewhat short as compared to other investments. Thus

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

M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

6. It is vehemently contended that all these statutory obligations that were required to be followed by the assessee in accordance with the Companies Act were followed. The only objection raised by the Income Tax Authorities was that capital gains cannot be directly taken into the account of the capital reserve, first, it has to be included in the profit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

6 (c) " infrastntcture facilitg assigned to it in clause section B0 1A. shall haue the rneaning k4 of sub-section (12) of II. Sec. 1O(23G) uas again amended bg Finance Act, 1997, as follolDs: - "(e) in clause (23G), (1 ) the uords, brackets, ftgures and letters, "uhich fulfils the conditions specified in sub-section ftA) of section B0-IA" shall

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

capital gain. The AO, however, did not accept the aforesaid contention of the assessee. He examined the features of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the transferee of the aforesaid assets on the basis of which he noticed as under:- “a) The assessee has not sold of whole of his business but only surrendered his right regarding publication

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains' at the hands of the assessee, and confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the assessment and dismissing the appeal, which is not sustainable, is the submission. 6. Per contra, the assessee would contend that unless there is transfer of asset as envisaged under ITA 33/10 -7- Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains. v) If there was no AOP what was the date of transfer of subject property to M/s. Parkway Developments Pvt. Ltd., ie, whether such transfer was a) AT the time of MOU? b) At the time of principle agreement? c) At the time of settlement deed? 4 d) At the time of execution of conveyance deed? 17. Taking

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(+7) of the Act for the pu4roses of computation o[ 7 gains tax accordingly. On the balance 75,000 shares rurder lock-in- period or tLnder pledge, libeny qranted t,-, the revenue \\-i1S authorities to lery capital gains tax in the relevant assessment )ear after expiry of the lock-in-period or after No Objection Crniiicate

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

6 Since the ITAT found that the gains were taxable as business income, the exemption of section 10(38) for long term capital

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains

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

6)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment year, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year- (i)xxxxx (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section

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

Bench: The Learned

6. The AO passed an assessment order dated 27.03.2015 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains