M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Capital gains” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where- (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding, the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable

DR ASHOK KUMAR JAIN vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P. B. Bajanthri Writ Petition Nos.51692-51693/2017 (T-It) Between: 1. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain S/O Chatarmal Jain Aged 48 Years Residing At F-201, Adarsh Residency 47Th Cross, Jayanagar 8Th Block Bengaluru-560082.

Capital Gain Tax computation chart on sale of property No.1801 and 1802, A-4, Elita Promende, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru-78. 2. Further, the proceedings relating to deduction of TDS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

TDS 28,20,543 Balance Tax 14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

TDS by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In support of his submissions, he has heavily relied upon the assessment order and the order in appeal before the CIT(A). 8. On the other hand, Sri. Sandeep Huilgol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee

SMT. DR. SUDHA KRISHNASWAMY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

capital gain of Rs.51,27,500/-. The assessee invested Rs.49,00,000/- in REC Bond claiming exemption under Section 54 EC of the Act. The assessee being non-resident, the purchaser of the property had deducted income tax as per provisions of Section 195 of the Act, which has resulted in a refund of Rs.10,85,730/- for the assessment

M/S GAONKAR MINES vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

TDS had already arisen during the financial year itself and the same did not accrue as on the last day of the year. The charge of interest under section 234B and 234C consequent upon disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), is therefore, automatic and mandatory in the given circumstances. Date of Order 14-11-2017 in W.P.No.36428/2016 M/s. Gaonkar Mines

M/S CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

Capital gains is received or accrued after due date of payment of the first or subsequent installments of advance tax, which was neither anticipated nor was in the contemplation of the assessee, and the advance tax on such income is paid in the remaining installment or installments, and the Chief Commissioner/Director General is satisfied on the facts and circumstances Date

SHRI M SATHYANARAYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

capital gains. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) -A, Bangalore. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ITAT, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore. 3. ITAT dismissed the appeal

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains from business and profession under Section 32 can be disallowed specially in case, where the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment made to purchase of software and has claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on such software. It is also pointed out that the intent of disallowance under Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offense or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purposes of business or profession and no deductions or allowance shall be made in respect

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

gains from certain - 116 - industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. Section 80IB (1) reads as under: 80-IB Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

gains from certain - 116 - industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. Section 80IB (1) reads as under: 80-IB Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

TDS is not deductible from commission payment to a foreign agency on foreign soil. 9. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of GVK Industries Ltd. (supra). In the aforesaid case, a Non-Resident Company had acted as a consultant to assessee-GVK Industries Ltd. (supra). It had skill, acumen and knowledge in specialized field

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof