INDIA v. IBRAHIM UDDIN

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SYNGENE

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…n is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 supra as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, (2016) 2 SCC 556. It is pertinent to mention here that even in the memo of appeal, the revenue has not pointed out any perversity 20 in respect of concurrent finding of fact recorded in favour of the assessee. In view of preceding analysis, substantial question of law framed by a bench of this court is answered against the revenue and in favour of the asse…

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.351 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD., PLOT NO.26/D, 26/4 & 26/6, KONN…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…n is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 supra as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, (2016) 2 SCC 556. 15 9. Now we may advert to the third substantial question of law. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has invested a sum of Rs.26,61,011/- from its own capital and the claim of the assessee for an amount of Rs.14,40,471/- under Section 14A of the Act has been r…

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…at since it was a sale of an ongoing concern, it had to be treated as a slump sale within the meaning of Section 2(42C) of the Act and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to assign the amount of 92 crores into different ₹ 3 (2016) 2 SCC 556 : (2015) 378 ITR 640 Page 16 JUDGMENT 16 heads of land, building and machinery and treating balance amount as goodwill. It was a capital asset as an ongoing concern which was sold at 92 crores and in the absence of provisions relating to mode of ₹ computation and deductions at the relevant time, which were inserted subsequently only w…

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…at since it was a sale of an ongoing concern, it had to be treated as a slump sale within the meaning of Section 2(42C) of the Act and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to assign the amount of 92 crores into different ₹ 3 (2016) 2 SCC 556 : (2015) 378 ITR 640 Page 16 JUDGMENT 16 heads of land, building and machinery and treating balance amount as goodwill. It was a capital asset as an ongoing concern which was sold at 92 crores and in the absence of provisions relating to mode of ₹ computation and deductions at the relevant time, which were inserted subsequently only w…