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

Appeal is allowed

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

Capital gains added by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 15. Re-Disallowance of premium on Insurance Policy Rs.3,33,333/- I.T.A

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

capital gains as offered by the assessee. He also disallowed the claim made under Section 40[a][ia] of the Act for non-deduction

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

gains and part of it as capital receipt, not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27807-DB ITA No. 584 of 2023 eligible to tax. Certain other disallowances

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

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

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-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

disallowance of estimated expenses under Section 14A of the Act and indexation benefit of long term capital gains under Section

M/S SITARAM JINDAL FOUNDATION vs. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF

Appeal is allowed

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

capital gain accrues on such transfer, are to be treated as income for purposes of computation Section 11 of the Act? iii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in disallowing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF

Appeal is dismissed by

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

disallowance of surplus on sale of assets even though entire 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12157-DB ITA No. 179 of 2021 sale consideration amounting to Rs.24,50,000/- as receipts for purpose of calculating the income available for application during the year is required to be considered since assessee is claiming deduction under Section

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowed the expenses and made an addition of Rs. 1,18,29,300. The 2KPMG India Private Limited. 3 Assessing Officer. 4Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A No.695/2019 C/W I.T.A No.696/2019 5 CIT(A)5 and ITAT6 have confirmed the addition. Hence, these appeals. 5. Shri. Sudheendra, learned Advocate for the Assessees submitted that: • admittedly, the assessees entered into an agreement

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains, such deductions should be allowed and profits should be computed after deducting the expenses incurred for business though such expenses may not be admissible expressly under the Act, unless such expenses are expressly disallowed by the Act. In SETH M DALMIA supra, the Supreme Court referred to with approval the decision of the Bombay High Court in ‘COMMISSIONER

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

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. 14.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 for the years

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

capital gains, was not available. 3. The assessee controverted the said contention and had asserted that all conditions as specified in Section 47 (xiii) of the Act were duly complied with. And, appealed the re-assessment order. However, the CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's appeal. This led the assessee to file an appeal before the learned ITAT

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality