M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

gain tax. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the question arises for consideration is: Whether the transfer of shares by the assessee in M/s.BFSL within effect would have the effect of M/s.DLFCDL which acquire the lands becoming entitled to the immovable property to the extent of 15 acres is a colorable device to avoid payment of income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains are also attracted on taking possession of the built up area”. As already stated, the issue was debatable and the belief entertained by the Assessee in this regard cannot be said to be unreasonable. The levy of penalty

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gain or short term capital loss and thus the claims registered are bogus. It appears that all these claims so registered by the respective income tax assessees for the year 2010-11 which runs through 2012-13, the claims were accepted by the Income-Tax Department. At a later point in time, it was found that these claims had some

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

capital gains either in the original return or in the return filed consequent to notice issued under Section 153A of the Act and assessee had concealed the particulars of income and consciously tried to evade tax and therefore penalty

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain arising out of the sale of the above property of Rs.15,44,009/- after claiming deduction towards incidental charges for transfer of property, the cost of acquisition and the deduction admissible under Section 54 of the Act in respect of two properties purchased in Bangalore viz., Koramangala and Domlur, II Stage, Bangalore, respectively

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 12 12. It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013, that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

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

penalty to 100% from 200%. Feeling aggrieved, assessee challenged both orders passed by the CIT(A) (order dated January 27, 2011 and August 16, 2011) before the ITAT. By the impugned common order, the ITAT has dismissed assessee's appeals. Hence, these appeals. 1 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 - ITA.421/2014 4. Sri.A.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate mainly contended • That M/s.Oberoi

SRI M SHANTHA KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition Nos.2176 & 11524/2012 (T-It) Between: Sri M Shantha Kumar Aged About 63 Years S/O Muniyappa Proprietor M/S Satya Hospital No.1, 1933/1, 1934 Kammanahalli Main Road Bangalore 560 084 ...Petitioner (By Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate) And: 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Queens Road, Bangalore 2 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Mission Road, Bangalore. ...Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate For R1& R2) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1St Respondent Dated 05.04.2010 Vide Annexure G & Etc. These Writ Petitions Coming On For Preliminary Hearing, This Day, The Court Made The Following:

penalty by the Appellate Authority from 300% to 100% cannot be said to be erroneous to warrant any interference. 5. I was taken through the reasoning in the four orders referred to above. The only question that falls for determination in these writ petitions is as to - 4 - W.P.Nos.2176 & 11524 OF 2012 whether the authorities under the Income

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS 11 deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT LTD

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed." 2. The Revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law in the appeal memo: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribu7nal is correct in giving a finding that the loss on shares of M/s. BPL Communication Ltd. kin A.Y.2003-04 calculated

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed so far as

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

capital gain of Rs.101 cr earned by the company in selling the shares of M/s. BPL Communication Ltd? 7) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue by relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains from the said business of manufacture and sale of liquor by M/S. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY was not assessable in its hands ? [iii] Whether the method of Accounting or entries made in the Books of Accounts by the Respondent Assessee or maintaining the Bank Accounts under the close control and supervision of DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE Date of Judgment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains from the said business of manufacture and sale of liquor by M/S. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY was not assessable in its hands ? [iii] Whether the method of Accounting or entries made in the Books of Accounts by the Respondent Assessee or maintaining the Bank Accounts under the close control and supervision of DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE Date of Judgment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

capital merely to save 35% thereof as a tax. To add to this, 15 the assessee pays tax on entire lease rent which effectively and substantially reduces any tax advantage available by way of claim of depreciation. In the net result it will still loose more than 65% of its own money, which no person will ever do. Thus, there

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital [and of the general reserves] of the corporation [or, as the case may be, the company], no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess. [Explanation.- In this clause.- (a) …........ (b) …........ (c) …........ (d) …........ [(e) “long-term finance” means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for repayment

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (hereafter "1984 Act"), The Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for selection and admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental degree and diploma courses Rules, 2006 (hereafter "2006 Rules"). 19. Sub-rules (5), (6) & (7) of Rule 15 of the aforesaid 2006 Rules which are relevant to the adjudication of this case, read as under: "(5) Candidates

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (hereafter "1984 Act"), The Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for selection and admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental degree and diploma courses Rules, 2006 (hereafter "2006 Rules"). 19. Sub-rules (5), (6) & (7) of Rule 15 of the aforesaid 2006 Rules which are relevant to the adjudication of this case, read as under: "(5) Candidates