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(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

capital gains — was invested in acquiring a residential house property bearing the address E- 27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [the new asset

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. M/s. Maheshwari Plaza Resorts (P) Ltd.,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/S Alloy Nitrides Limited,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri R.Gowsreesham,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

The Commissioner of Income Tax -IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Gains of Business or Profession’. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Pandooi Palace v. CIT, Patna (supra) followed the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee therein had constructed a Commercial complex in the name and style of Pandooi Palace and was drawing rental income from the same. It was on the facts that

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

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

house property”, “Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

house property”, “Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 possession

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

capital 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

capital 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

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

house property for a sum of Rs.2,03,986/- and capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from

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

HOUSE CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 5(1), BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20-4-2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.1098/BNG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO FORMULATE

M/S.HASTALLOY INDIA LTD vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/VIZAG

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

capital outlay attention and labour for constructing shop rooms on land belonging to a school and letting out those on collection of rents that was somewhat shared between the contractor and the School. The remaining case laws of A.P. High Court concerning certain Govt. Corporations may have some apparent relevance to the facts of the appellant’s case