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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

iii)M Harish Rs.23,58,226 (iv)M Suresh Rs.21,17,341 (v) M Rajesh Rs.19,27,253 These 5 partners who became the shareholders of the successor company were however, allotted only 1210 equity shares of Rs.10/- each on 01.05.1999 and remaining shares were allotted to them subsequently in a phased manner. The first allotment came to the extent

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

iii)M Harish Rs.23,58,226 (iv)M Suresh Rs.21,17,341 (v) M Rajesh Rs.19,27,253 These 5 partners who became the shareholders of the successor company were however, allotted only 1210 equity shares of Rs.10/- each on 01.05.1999 and remaining shares were allotted to them subsequently in a phased manner. The first allotment came to the extent

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s ABB LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING BANGALORE-560 001 PAN:AAACA 3834B …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.05.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1281/BANG/2010

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

10,22,946/-. the share purchased worth Rs.1.00 crore was also sold to the RAL within few days, for Rs.1,00,000/- and suffered the short term capital loss. The purchase and sale of the shares between the close relatives and interested parties and family members, the entire transactions are colourable device. Hence, they are not entitled to claim short

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

10. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has given a liberal interpretation to Section 54 of the Act in coming to a conclusion as regards the investment made by the assessee in a new asset purchased in the name of his wife is concerned that there is no requirement that investment should be made in the name

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

10 reinvested by her for purchase of another residential property namely, a flat at Mumbai itself for a total consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/- as per Memorandum of Understanding entered on 08.09.2003. It is also not in dispute that assessee had been paid a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- as advance between 12.04.2003 to 24.09.2003 as against

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

capital, but the workman should also be entitled to participate in it. 103 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments with regard to “Transfer was malafide”: (i) The Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI .vs. GRINDLAYS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, MUMBAI AND ANOTHER reported

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, was based on the sufficient and relevant reasons and further the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “Capital gains. 45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 55(2) of the Act during the relevant assessment year. The Assessee had only a limited licence to manufacture the six items as a licence holder in view of the Assignment Deed. The agreement entered into between the parties, prima facie, discloses that what is transferred by the Assessee to M/s. Sharp Corporation, is goodwill of the business

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, rejection of claim made by the appellant u/s.54B of the Act is sustainable in law? 3. Mr. R. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Assessee has urged before us that Block Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.34/2017 Gopal

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain under the Act. 11 It is also contended that a unit means a separate taxable entity. It is also argued that Section 80IA of the Act is a incentive provision granting tax benefit and therefore, the same has to be construed strictly and the provision of the taxing statute has to be construed in a manner, object / purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the entire series of transactions by which the shares of NCCPL were ultimately transferred to GBFL were all valid and such an arrangement to avoid payment of taxes on account of correct quantum of capital gain that would result on transfer

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha Ram 14,86,22,780/- 22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha Ram 14,86,22,780/- 22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi