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

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

house. 6. On 17th December, 1992 the Assessee entered into an agreement for sale of two of the flats from her share in the property to close family friends. In the return filed for the AY 1993-94 she declared Rs. 11,55,802/- as long term capital gain in terms of Section

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 I vs. M/S Alloy Nitrides Limited,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

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

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

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

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

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

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

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

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

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

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

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

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeals stand allowed leaving the

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

short ‘the Tribunal’) are of two different assessees, with respect to assessment years 2002-03 to 2007- 08, raising the very same question of law. The question of law framed is as below:- ‘Whether the Tribunal committed a gross error in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority reversed by the first appellate authority, finding the rental income

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

short term capital gain arising on account of sale of a residential property. The surrendered income included cash seized from the bank account of Sarup Chand. 5. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.04.2009 framed assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 qua both the appellants herein. The assessment order was also passed with respect to tax liability of Sarup

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

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance on the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd1, especially the following paragraph: 1 [1996] 221 ITR 117 (Ker.) ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -9- 'It is also necessary to see the situational peculiarities. If a commercial asset

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

short, “the Act”) and they were accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Hyderabad, passed an order for the assessment year 1998-99 on 30.3.2001 under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the appellant at Rs.1,74,68,625/- and in the process of determination

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

short term and long term deposits. During the assessment year the interest income from the deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior