SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

capital gains or claimed exemption from capital gains tax. As such, it came to be held by Assessing Officer that

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

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gain. It is also submitted that in case this court holds that the gains received on sale of share are not perquisites then the matter may be remitted to the 8 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as the Tribunal has not dealt with the issue of exemptions

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

Appeal is allowed

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

gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs.1,47,79,298/- is to be taken as deemed profit on transfer of stock and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,56,33,870/- and offered

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

exempt income under the provisions of I.T. Act and assessee had shown the interest income in the books of account?”. 6 2. For the facility of reference, facts from ITA No. 258/2011 are being referred to – The assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in banking business. The assessee filed return of income on 24.11.2003 along with audit report under

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

capital gains and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act. It is further submitted that rental income derived from

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

Appeal is dismissed by

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

gains whereas assessee is also claiming deduction of capital assets under Section 11 and application of income is arrived while declaring income?" 3. Heard Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Smt. Sheetal Borkar, learned counsel for the respondent. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12157-DB ITA No. 179 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits

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

Appeal is allowed

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

EXEMPTION) RANGE-17, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BLDG ANNEXE MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560 027 …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.750/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS

FABSUN ENGINEERING vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

exemption of Rs.78,65,256/- under Section 54G of the Income tax Act, 1961('Act' for short) against long term capital gains

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