COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of M/s Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai reported in 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in details various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 and propounded the following broader tests: (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that

SRI ABDUL GAFFAR S/O SRI ABDUL RAHIM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gain from the sale was in a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. The assessee owned a residential house at the time of sale of the said site. The 3 assessee invested the sale value in improving and remodeling his residential house. The assessee claimed exemption of the said amount towards reconstruction and remodeling of the existing residential house

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

U/S 263 DATED 2ND JANUARY, 2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 15.12.2011. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT.NEENA KRISHNA MENON

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

u/s. 54EC without appreciating that the Commissioner of income 3 tax directed the assessing officer to disallowed the deduction to the extent of rupees 50 lakhs holding that the phrase “during any financial year” means during any financial year after the first day of April 2007 and the intention of law was to identify any one of the financial years

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

U/S 260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

revised return is filed under Section 139 (5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on merits and has rejected the claim on merits also. - 92 - 74. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the said substantial

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

revised return is filed under Section 139 (5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on merits and has rejected the claim on merits also. - 92 - 74. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the said substantial

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure is nothing but an antithesis of the principles laid down by the CBDT in its above mentioned circular. On this ground itself find that the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax is not sustainable in law. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure is nothing but an antithesis of the principles laid down by the CBDT in its above mentioned circular. On this ground itself find that the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax is not sustainable in law. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce