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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short term  loss   claimed   by   the   assessee,   though   the  assessee   could  not  establish   the  factum  of  sales made to the associate concern and the  transactions were without the intervention of  the   broker.   The   tribunal   therefore   allowed  the appeal filed by the revenue rejecting the  appeal   filed   by   the   assessee,   holding   as  under: “21.   We   have   carefully   considered   the   rival  submissions

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

short). Date of transfer declared was 14th August, 1997. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 54F of Rs.5 Crores on account of having purchased immovable property 5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores on 8th August, 1998. 6. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27th March, 2001 for the AY 1998-99 held that one lakh equity

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price to M/s. Mac Charles Pvt. Ltd. The said explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Authority which adopted the market value of the property at Rs.1193/- per sq. ft. and arrived at Short Term Capital Gain at Rs.6,34,26,274/- and levied Capital Tax on the said amount. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal

The Commissioner of income Tax-III, vs. M/S Raj Breeders and Hatcheries [Pvt.] Ltd.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short term capital gains by Assessing Officer, which was withdrawn. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved the Revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

short). 2. The Assessee purchased SMP as Raw Material/Processing Articles, which was used in the manufacture of milk in its Dairy for standardization of the milk at a particular level from the registered dealers in the State of Rajasthan at concessional rate of 4% against the declaration Form ST-17 issued to it by the Departmental authorities during the relevant

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

short `SA/GPA/WILL' transfers). Both the descriptions are misnomers as there cannot be a sale by execution of a power of attorney nor can there be a transfer by execution of an agreement of sale and a power of attorney and Will. As noticed in the earlier order, these kinds of transactions were evolved to avoid prohibitions/conditions regarding certain transfers

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gained under the second license agreement and without any payment whatsoever, the word “HILTON” was used. Thus, he submits that the ITAT and AO were right in holding that the expenditure is a capital expenditure and the deduction is not liable to be allowed. Analysis and Findings Capital expenditure and Revenue expenditure - Tests 16. There is exhaustive case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

short) between India and the then Federal Republic of Germany. The aforesaid DTAA was notified on 13th September, 1960. Article VIIIA was inserted subsequently after protocol was signed on 28th June, 1984 and ratified on 10th July, 1985. As the said article arises for consideration, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the entire Article:- “ ARTICLE VIIIA ITA Nos. 93/2002 & 120/2008

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen 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

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

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

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, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

Commissioner of Income Tax - II, vs. M/s. The Andhra Pradesh State Co-op Bank Ltd.,

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

transferred to the trust at the face value and the employees of the assessee were allowed to exercise the option to buy the shares within the time prescribed under the scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The assessee claimed the difference of market price and allotment price as a discount and claimed the same as an expenditure under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date: Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing] Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel in the manner hereinbefore specified presents exceptional difficulties, the Assessing] Officer may compute such profits

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