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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set off of the loss of Rs.16,88,750/­  paid   by   the   assessee   against   the   regular  business for capital gain

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set off of the loss of Rs.16,88,750/­  paid   by   the   assessee   against   the   regular  business for capital gain

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

gain”. 3. The appellant as well as the company filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the same confirming the orders of the AO. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee has filed two appeals ITA Nos.642 and 782/Hyd/2002 for the assessment year 1998- 99 and 1999-2000 respectively, and the company filed ITA No.361/Hyd/2003

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

setting off of a loss from one source falling under any head of income (other than capital gain) against income

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

set aside u h.at Parliament deems to haue been a ju.dicial error, u,hetLer it the statement of the common l.atu or '1zoor1s scc +9 ;&*i 11) l0 in the interpretation of statutes. Usuallg, if not inuariablg, such an Act contains a preamble, aftd also the word "declared" as uell as the Luord "enacted

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

loss. 8. Assessment Order records that to investigate, whether this was a case of legitimate tax planning or tax evasion and whether the transaction was genuine, notices under Section 131 of the Act were issued to NIIT. Further, investigation had revealed that the assessee had lodged 76,000 and 24,000 equity shares statedly sold to M/s GIPL on 14th

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

Capital gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

capital gains :: l6:: @ Rs,27,85,13il- as agairut thc sum of 8,s.48$771- as adrniued by the appeilant. Appeal fails on this point. 23. In the appeal, after considering the pleadings and rival submissions, Tribunal helcl as follols: We are of the vieu. that the Revenue deserves to succeed on the qr,restion of the saie consideration having

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss account for the year ending 31.3.2004 by the assessee and offered for tax as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer did not accept the objections raised and explanations offered, and went ahead to complete the assessment by fixing the total income at Rs.1,87,00,000/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment, the assessee went on appeal before

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

capital gains) or as stock-in-trade (and therefore giving rise to business ITA No.485/2012 Page 12 profits). The Assessing Officers are further advised that no single principle would be decisive and the total effect of all the principles should be considered to determine whether, in a given case, the shares are held by the assessee as investment or stock

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain made by assessing authority relating to Rs.2,94,26,600/- as long term capital being transfer of land in “Devagiri Farms” by the assessee when the assessee was the owner of the said land and had gifted the same to his wife Smt. Anitha Purnesh through a registered Gift Deed dated 20.1.2003 subsequently assessee’s wife in turn transferred

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, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time

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, they should be treated as capital expenditure in the hands of the Assessee, was not based on sound reasoning. (iv) Expenditure on purchase of stock and trade is charged to the P&L and trading account at the time of purchase, which cannot be deferred. The observation of the AO that the Appellant was free to claim the deduction

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, they should be treated as capital expenditure in the hands of the Assessee, was not based on sound reasoning. (iv) Expenditure on purchase of stock and trade is charged to the P&L and trading account at the time of purchase, which cannot be deferred. The observation of the AO that the Appellant was free to claim the deduction

AVANTI FEEDS LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

set aside the order of CIT(A) by allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the vital fact that the assessee entered into such transactions of purchase and sale 2 of penny stocks i.e. BLUE CIRCLE & CCL INTERNATIONAL featuring in the list of ‘Bogus Capital Loss Claims’ information data provided by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata? ii. Whether

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

capital asset disregarding the revenue nature of the foreign exchange fluctuation? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the computation made by the assessing authority in respect of section 10-AA by holding that if the expenditure on travel is excluded from both export turnover and total turnover

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s B.V.L. Exports

Accordingly set aside. Co. Appeal (SB) No. 5 of 2006 is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss of Rs.8,64,15,538/- against Rs.37,60,41,886/- computed by the Assessing officer as short term capital gain. 2.2 Whether the transactions regarding Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. between the Assessee company and Shri R.P.Mital were in the nature of “colourable transaction.” 2. We note that the issue of short term capital gain itself had come