SMT.B.SEETHARATNAM vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

property as collateral security to tlr: bank. It was further observed that the loan or advance given I e return is art advantage upon the company ald is not a gra- ritous loan or advance given by the company and does not c: Tre under the permission of Section 22 (2) of the Act, 1961 ar d accordingly ./ Page

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

deemed to be in the custody of the Tribunal as from the date of the order for the winding up of the company". Accordingly, the official liquidator had taken possession of the company's land ad measuring 176 acres, buildings, plants and machineries, fixtures and movable assets, residential quarters and sites etc., situated at Yantrapura, Harihara, Davangere District. Subsequently with

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

dividends, voluntary payment received by trust, etc. It may be noted that profits and gains are generally used in terms of business or profession as provided u/s. 28. The word " income ", therefore, is a much wider term than the expression profits and gains of business or profession ". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). There

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13 shall apply accordingly. Technically, none of the provisions contained in amended section 2(15), 11, 12 and 13 are complied in this case hence the claim of exemption of the assessee company is not entertainable

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

dividend’ under sub-section (22)(e) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vazir Sultan & Sons1, Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax2, Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax3, Commissioner of Income

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

deems fit and in the present case through APL without the right of distributing the assets; (ii) Section 247 of the Succession Act enjoins the duty upon the Court as guardian of the estate of the deceased to not only appoint an administrator, but to render all protection to the administrator during pendency of the suit or proceeding touching

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

house in Mussoorie and, therefore, was not entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITA No. 405/2005 (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taking the market value of the shares quoted at the stock exchange on 05.05.1998 as the basis for computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deemed to be income. This amendment is prospective which means that the law is to be interpreted in the light of the judgments applicable, notably Ponni Sugars (supra) in the present case. 16. It is stated that in Sahney Steel (supra) and Ponni Sugars (supra) the issue decided was, what was the true purpose of the incentive or the subsidy