The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short term profit.  He   contended   that   if   Assessing   Officer   is  treating   loss   as   not   allowable   arising   to  assessee out of shares of UTI Master Shares and  L & T Shares on the ground that sale proceeded  the   purchase   then   Assessing   Officer   cannot  treat the profit arising on similar transaction  on   different   footing   as   the   same   will   be  discriminatory.” Referring

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short term profit.  He   contended   that   if   Assessing   Officer   is  treating   loss   as   not   allowable   arising   to  assessee out of shares of UTI Master Shares and  L & T Shares on the ground that sale proceeded  the   purchase   then   Assessing   Officer   cannot  treat the profit arising on similar transaction  on   different   footing   as   the   same   will   be  discriminatory.” Referring

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

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

terms of Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

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

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains on transfers, to invest unaccounted money (`black money') and to avoid payment of `unearned increases' due to Development Authorities on transfer. 2. The modus operandi in such SA/GPA/WILL transactions is for the vendor or person claiming to be the owner to receive the agreed consideration, deliver possession of the property to the purchaser and execute the following documents

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials