THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

gain and the other deduction for short term capital loss while filing their returns under Section 139 of the Act. All was well up to September, 2015. The Department conducted search on all the petitioners herein under Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 of the Act reads as follows: “132. Search and seizure.—(1) [Where the [Principal Director General

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

10. Applying the aforesaid statutory provisions and the notifications to the facts of the case, petitioner having sold a long term capital asset on 16.3.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,99,00,000/- from out of which Rs.1,82,00,000/- was the capital gain, was entitled to make an investment of the entire sum of Capital Gain

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

10. The first question that arises for consideration is, whether on 31.03.2021, the respondents were entitled to reopen the assessment proceedings of the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13 after the expiry of four years as contemplated in Section 147 of the I.T.Act; in this context, reliance is placed upon the proviso to Section 147 of the I.T.Act

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

10(1), C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s DYNAMIC ENTERPRISES 38/3, BLOCK – 2 SRI LAKSHMI INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX 2 HOSUR MAIN ROAD, GARVEBHAVI PALYA BOMMANAHALLI, MADIVALA POST BANGALORE – 560068 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.SARANGAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI K.S.RAMABADRAN, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OR ORDER DATED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10. The provision of Section 47A relevant for the present controversy are also quoted below for ready reference:66 [Withdrawal of exemption in certain cases. 47A. [(1) Where at any time before the expiry of a period of eight years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

10. The provision of Section 47A relevant for the present controversy are also quoted below for ready reference:66 [Withdrawal of exemption in certain cases. 47A. [(1) Where at any time before the expiry of a period of eight years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 153D read with Section 144 for the assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which transfer took place, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit conferred under Section 54(1) of the Act. As in this case, assessee has purchased two residential houses, he is entitled to the benefit only in respect of one residential house, which is higher

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital in nature and it is also not chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act when the assessing authority rightly brought to tax as by holding that

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section 26(2) of the Income 10 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 24(2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 72 of the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision

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 an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs.1,10,000/- forfeited out of payment received from Rallis India Ltd is to be treated as capital receipt subject to the adjustment under section 51 of the Act and should be excluded as revenue receipt while computing the total income. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47,434/- was claimed as an exemption under Section 54 of the Act and Rs.25 Lakhs is claimed as an exemption for making investment in REC bonds under Section 54EC of the Act. The contention of the appellant 6 was that out of the advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs received from M/s. Fashion Jewellery

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1,60,00,000/- as against total value of property at `3,25,00,000/-. Assessing officer has held that agreement to purchase the said property was 5 entered on 08.09.2003 and between April’ 2003 to September’ 2003 `2,40,00,000/- was paid by the assessee. By assessment order dated 31.12.2007 – Annexure – C assessing officer held that sale transaction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

10. We have heard Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue as well as Sri. A. Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Assessee and perused the material on record. 11. Section 45 of the Act is the charging section for ‘capital gains’. Section 45[1

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 48 would indicate that the income chargeable under the head capital gains shall be computed by deducting the following amounts from the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. [1] expenditure incurred wholly or exclusively in connection with such transfer [2] cost of - 10

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time