M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains to be taxed in the hands of the recipient share holder, viz., Mauritius Holding Company in the present case, in India. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 16/86 18. He further submitted that the said Indo- Mauritius DTAA, of course now stands amended

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

cash deficit amount? viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made on account of amounts deposited by cheques to an extent of Rs.84,61,055/- even when the assessee failed to explain the said deposit with proper material? 5 2. The facts giving rise

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gains under Section 80P of the Act. Pursuant to which, the assessing officer has submitted a reply as under;- - 9 - “REPLY TO AUDIT ENQUIRY NO.2 DATED 25.07.2006 Name of the assessee : Kannika parameshwaari Co-op. Bank Ltd., Davanagere, Asst. year/s : 2004-05 The assessee is a Regional Rural Bank notified u/s 3 of the Regional Rural Banking Service

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

deposit till the date of refund. (iii) DECLARE that the petitioners are not required to pay any tax/advance tax in respect of the compensation amount paid to them by the 7th respondent as per Official Memorandum dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-A) in view of the exemption granted under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

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

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

deposit till the date of refund. (iii) DECLARE that the petitioners are not required to pay any tax/advance tax in respect of the compensation amount paid to them by the 7th respondent as per Official Memorandum dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-A) in view of the exemption granted under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

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 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI. R. CHARUCHANDRA

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

capital gains offered for the taxation for assessment year 2002-03 disclosed that cash was available with the assessee for lending since same had been withdrawn from the Bank and as such, it has been concluded that sufficient cash was available with the assessee for lending. In that view of the matter, grounds urged by the revenue came

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

depositing the cheques, and copies of cheques used for withdrawing cash from the account of the transport concerns. Even common names appearing on the back side of the cheque 16 leaves showing the name of the person withdrawing the case namely, Mr. Pinaji Abdul Saleem, Mr. L. Raghuram Chaudhry, Mr. Suresh, Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy, Mr. Murali and Mr. R. Gangadhar

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

Capital Gains F. Income from other sources. (2) 'Perquisite' includes : (i) the value of rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer; (ii) the value of any concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer; (iii) the value of any benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE BELGAUM TALUKA RURAL INDUSTRIAL

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

cash investment in Mruthyunjaya Finance, Dharwad in the name of Defendant No.1. It is submitted that during the year 1987, defendant No.1 invested Rs.12,500/- as his capital in the said finance institution. As the said finance institution suffered loss, the investment so made has become dead investment. At any rate, the said investment is by defendant No.1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MAHATAMA BASAVESHWARA

In the result, the above questions are answered in favour

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities. Section 80P(4) which came to be introduced in the statute by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 1.4.2007, reads as under: 80P(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SHIVABODHARANGA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE

In the result, the above questions are answered in favour

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities. Section 80P(4) which came to be introduced in the statute by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 1.4.2007, reads as under: 80P(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society