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

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

9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions are incidental to the main question and are adverted to at the appropriate

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions are incidental to the main question and are adverted to at the appropriate

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1) of section 36, IV. Finance Act 1999 introduced the follouing fufther Explanation: " Explanation 2.- For the remoual of doubts, it is herebg declared that ang income bg uag of diuidends, interest or long-term capital gains of an infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7"t daA of June, 1998 bg utay

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-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) salaries, (2) interest on securities, (3) income from property, (4) profits and gains of business, profession or vocation, (5) income from other sources and - - 32 (6) capital gains. This classification under distinct heads of income profits and gains is made having regard to the sources from which income is derived. Income-tax is undoubtedly levied on the total taxable

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there was a delay of one day in filing the return for the assessment year 2004-05, as the due date for filing of the return which happened to be a Sunday and the next day being Kannada Rajyosthsava Day, the assessee was under bonafide belief that it was a Government Holiday

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is exigible to income tax for short term capital gains in the assessment year 1999- 2000? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case: (i) In the light of the law relating to part performance (Sec.2(47)(v) of the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

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

v). It has been further alleged that even opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner by issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.2016 requiring the petitioner to show cause against the intended prosecution against him under section 276C(1), 277 and 278E of the Income Tax Act. (vi). It has been further stated that the assessee had replied

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) of section 49], shall be taken to be nil” ITA 549/2011 Page 11 of 16 9. This provision clearly provides determining the cost of any relation to a capital asset being the right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business. 10. Once we accept the fact that the brand names

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1), Collyer v.  Isaacs (2), Performing Rights Society v. London  Theatre of Varieties, Limited (3) and Performing  Rights   Society   v.   London   Theatre   of   Varieties  (4).   In   equity   such   a   transfer   may   in   certain  circumstances create equitable rights, but at law  it is useless. The deed poll accordingly was for  this reason alone of no effective service to the  respondent

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1), Collyer v.  Isaacs (2), Performing Rights Society v. London  Theatre of Varieties, Limited (3) and Performing  Rights   Society   v.   London   Theatre   of   Varieties  (4).   In   equity   such   a   transfer   may   in   certain  circumstances create equitable rights, but at law  it is useless. The deed poll accordingly was for  this reason alone of no effective service to the  respondent

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1), Collyer v.  Isaacs (2), Performing Rights Society v. London  Theatre of Varieties, Limited (3) and Performing  Rights   Society   v.   London   Theatre   of   Varieties  (4).   In   equity   such   a   transfer   may   in   certain  circumstances create equitable rights, but at law  it is useless. The deed poll accordingly was for  this reason alone of no effective service to the  respondent

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 9 provides for the income deemed to accrue or arise in India. It reads as under: “9(1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India- (i) all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital receipt and therefore both, section 11 (5) and Section 13 (l) (d) of the Act, would not be applicable. 15- Learned counsel appearing for the department on the other harrd justifying the order of the ITAT, contended that since the order of the assessing ofhcer has already been subjected to scrutiny and challenge, there is hardly any scope left

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

capital gains; or (b) income of the nature referred to   in sub­clause (ix) of clause (24) of  section 2, and the assessee has paid the whole of the  amount of tax payable in respect of income  referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), as  the case may be, had such income been a part  of   the   total   income

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

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