The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

253 ITR396 (Mad.) and in the case of CIT vs Menon Impex (P) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 403 (Mad.) and by Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Cochin Refineries Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 278 (Ker) that the used of the term "derived from" in the relevant provision of the Act indicates the restricted meaning to cover only

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

1)(c) were to be initiated and third, that the claim for rebate under Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since no evidence of the Securities Transaction Tax paid was furnished. It was reasoned that the purpose of a portfolio manager was to optimize returns of the investor. Since the motive of the transactions was the earning

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. The following common question arises in these batch of nine appeals arising from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) hereafter: “Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of exemption of sales tax payments was not a trading receipt but was a capital receipt, hence not liable

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 5(1)(xxi) as exemption was claimed as a new and separate unit set up after the commencement of the Act. The Madras High ITA 257/2012 Page 9 of 18 Court at page 824 observes : “Unless a factory is erected and the plant and machinery installed therein, it cannot be said to have been set up. The resolutions