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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gain and brought the entire sum of Rs.33.21 Crores received towards non- competition fee and interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the addition

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

income and not capital gains. It is significant to note that the said property was held by the assessee as long term capital asset. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, has recorded a finding that the contents of the letter alleged to have been written by the assessee to his partner do not clearly establish as to whether

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains on the ground that the transfer was taxable in that year. The contention of the assessee is that the return of income for the Assessment Year 2008–09, wherein the benefit under Section 54 of the IT Act was claimed, has been accepted, and taxes have been duly paid on the balance consideration in the Assessment Years

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

capital gain whatsoever shown in the return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 by the assessee on sale of this flat. It means, the assessee himself has not recognized the sale on 6.1.2009. Hence it is assumed that this flat was still in the ownership of the assessee on the date of transfer of the land at Mysore during the financial

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

addition to total income of Rs.1,98,67,157/- i.e., Rs.1,65,26,955/- + Rs.33,42,202/-. 3. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 11.11.2013 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

addition to an extent of Rs.68,86,826/- as short term capital gains in respect of the building at Audugodi on the facts and circumstances of the case. I.T.A No.201/2017 3 2. Without prejudice, whether the computation of short term capital gains at Rs.68,86,826/- is in accordance with law and whether the excess over the cost

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

Capital Gains'. It was held that the Assessing Officer had, in the assessment concluded under Section 153(A) read with Section 143(3) of the Act, sought to tax the aforesaid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27807-DB ITA No. 584 of 2023 amount as Business Income on the basis of a written opinion of a Senior Advocate which

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gains on which tax has to be paid. The expenditure, therefore, should have direct connection and should not be remote or have indirect result or connect with the transfer.” 15. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Venkata Rajendran8, this Court has held that: “9. The sale of shares took place on the account of the legal and professional assistance

SHRI SRINIVASAN CHANDIRA KUMAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains. According to the assessee the aforesaid sum was an expenditure incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer as contemplated under Section 48(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.11.2011 disallowed an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from out of the deduction of Rs.1 Crore claimed under Section 54EC

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. 44.The impugned order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.653(Bang) 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11, wherein

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

addition of long term capital gains of Rs.5,69,78,516/- made by the assessing officer? 3 (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 45(2) and 49(1) of the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital gains’. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house and gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under s. 22 as income from house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under s. 56 of the Act. The company may also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital gains’. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house and gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under s. 22 as income from house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under s. 56 of the Act. The company may also

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RENAGE-8, BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANMATHI E. I., ADV.) AND: SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA (DECED) REP. BY SHRI NISHANTH DINESH RANKA, NO.31, RANKA CHAMBERS, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 PAN: AABMP8430M. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS JUNITA CHATTERGEE, ADV. FOR SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 vs. M/S RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST

In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions 2 ‘The Act’ for short - 4 - ITA No. 554/2018 Range, Bengaluru, vide letter dated 13.02.2015, took up the case for scrutiny assessment and subsequently, the AO3 passed the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 holding that income from other source as income by the Trust. The CIT(A)4 confirmed AO’s order. The ITAT

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KWALITY BISCUITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

addition of Rs.8,91,96,531/- under the head Income from Long Term Capital Gain was made, which was not disclosed