Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

6], Commissioner of IT v Market Committee[7], Commissioner of Income Tax v Gujarat Maritime Board, Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1)[8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section

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

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

6], Commissioner of IT v Market Committee[7], Commissioner of Income Tax v Gujarat Maritime Board, Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1)[8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 7.12.1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time

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

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 vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

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

gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account: Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts carried to such reserve account from time to time exceeds twice the amount of the paid up share capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall

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, 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 276 (C) (1

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

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 Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

6 1/2 per cent Gold Bonds, 1977, issued by the Central Government; (v) Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, issued by the Central Government; ITA 549/2011 Page 10 of 16 (vi) Gold Deposit Bonds issued under the Gold Deposit Scheme, 1999 notified by the Central Government.” Section 2 (11): “block of assets” means a group of assets falling within a class

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed in accordance with provision of sub-section (3) of section 139. Sub-section (3) of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

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

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

6], CIT v Muzaffar Nagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd[7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

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

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

6], CIT v Muzaffar Nagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd[7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also

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

6], CIT v Muzaffar Nagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd[7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also

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

6], CIT v Muzaffar Nagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd[7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also