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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

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

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

Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

Capital Gains Tax arising out of the commercial development project of the Schedule A' and 'B' properties' The appellantllmage Developers claimed title to the land allo-tted to the respondents on the basis of the Development Agreements d'ated 24'11- 1993' 10. The respondents executed 7 GPAs on 24'll'1993 in keeping with the oral understanding between

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital Gains Tax arising out of the commercial development project of the Schedule A' and 'B' properties' The appellantllmage Developers claimed title to the land allo-tted to the respondents on the basis of the Development Agreements d'ated 24'11- 1993' 10. The respondents executed 7 GPAs on 24'll'1993 in keeping with the oral understanding between

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

Capital Gains Tax arising out of the commercial development project of the Schedule A' and 'B' properties' The appellantllmage Developers claimed title to the land allo-tted to the respondents on the basis of the Development Agreements d'ated 24'11- 1993' 10. The respondents executed 7 GPAs on 24'll'1993 in keeping with the oral understanding between

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

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

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

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, this Cr.M.P

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

capital gain, which has accrued upon the petitioner, was in fact, bogus and not genuine. It is next submitted that Section 278 E of the Income Tax Act is not a penal provision of law and only provides for presumption as to the culpable mental state. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

Section 153A of 1961 Act. The appellant disclosed undisclosed income of Rs.77,25,000/- as short term capital gain arising on account of sale of a residential property. The surrendered income included cash seized from the bank account of Sarup Chand. 5. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.04.2009 framed assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 qua both

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

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof was estimated as expenditure incurred for earning such income. 3. The assessee, thereupon, filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

73 - 8 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 Tax Tribunal], if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.” (Other sub-sections not being much relevant are not reproduced) Appeal lies only if the case involves a substantial question of law, which the memorandum of appeal, ideally speaking, has to precisely state. However

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

73 12 with which we are not concerned. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the 1947 Act as well as Section 161 (since repealed) of the IPC. In para 23, this Court held that ―to constitute an offence under Section 161 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

section. Nonetheless, as an overall matter, GE is correct that in some instances, ITAT‟s characterization of certain conversations appears to overstate the importance of the activities in India (for e.g. e- mail chain on Reliance-GT Exhaust Height; e-mail chain on confirmation of RIL PO No. DG8/3389741). Nevertheless, in many other instances, ITAT‟s decision is sound

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