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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

gains cannot be directly taken into the account of the capital reserve, first, it has to be included in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. The Act provides that income prepared in accordance with the Companies Act shall be ‘deemed income’ for the purpose of Section 115JB

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

gains of an infrastructure capital companA from inuestments made on or after the l't dctA of June,l999,bg uag of shares or lorug tenn firuance in any enterpise uthollg engaged in the business of deueloping ,maintaining and oPerating anA infrastntcture facilitg and which has been approued by eh Central Gouernment orL an application made bg it ;in accordan.ce

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

8. It can also be said that the „right to carry on any business‟ has been recognized by the legislature as capital asset for the purposes of assessing and computing the capital gains as is clear from the reading of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains can be computed under Section 45. Electricity and phone connections were taken by M/s.MAPL with the intention to start business, which was a non starter, and ultimately ended up in rescission of contract. The learned counsel for the assessee points out that there is no recital in the agreement for sale produced at Annexures-A and B regarding

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

gains on the sale of land to one of its sister concerns namely M/s.MD Properties Pvt. Ltd., is concerned, relying on Section 50C of the Act providing for adoption of the guideline value as the consideration for transfer of a capital asset, Section 80IA(8

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

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

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

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

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

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

section 111A on short term capital gains were both denied. 7. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the transactions must be considered by themselves, while applying the tests to determine whether they are investments or adventure in the nature of trade. It is urged that the PMS agreement, by its terms alone or by the fact of agency being handed

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and 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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 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

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

Section 54 F (3) of the Act. It is not in dispute that she paid the long term capital gains tax computed on the above basis. 7. The return was picked up for scrutiny and on 18th March, 1996 the ITA No. 299/2003 Page 3 of 5 Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order in which, after setting

Commissioner of Incoem Tax- 2, vs. M/s. Erythor Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(1) of the Act. The appellant along with others had owned an inherited property. The appellant and other members of the family had different and specific shares in the said property. All the co-owners have constructed a residential complex on the aforesaid land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and sold the flats