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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10(38) of the Act and therefore he submits the order passed by the authorities are valid and legal and does not call for any interference. 12. From the material on record, it is clear the 30 acres of land in White Field belong to Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL). It became a sick industrial company. Before BIFR, a scheme

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

10,700/- including an additional income of Rs.73,71,275/- on account of the capital gain. 4. The assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’ for short) with M/s R&S Turnkey Contractors Private Limited for development of 84 cents of land. As per the JDA dated 21.10.2010, the - 4 - assessee was entitled to 30% of the total

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

capital gains arising to an Individual or a HUF from compulsory acquisition of an agricultural land situated in specified urban-limit subject 33 to fulfillment of certain conditions for specified urban land) 2. The RFCTLARR Act which came into effect from 1st January, 2014. in section 96, inter-alia provides that income-tax shall not be levied on any Award

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

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

capital gains arising to an Individual or a HUF from compulsory acquisition of an agricultural land situated in specified urban-limit subject 33 to fulfillment of certain conditions for specified urban land) 2. The RFCTLARR Act which came into effect from 1st January, 2014. in section 96, inter-alia provides that income-tax shall not be levied on any Award

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

30,850/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The assessee made available necessary information and details to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had shown capital gains for sale of property at Rs.10,13,45,711/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,85,142/-. The assessee ITA.No.456/2017 - 3 - acquired the property under the Will dated

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

30 Section 45 of the Act provides for how profit or gain arising from transfer of capital asset is to be charged to income tax as ‘Capital gains’. Sub-section (2) provides that the ‘fair market value’ of the asset would be deemed to be the ‘full value of the consideration’ on the relevant date. Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

30. Sub-section (1) lays down that the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of another country. Clause (a) (i) contemplates situation when tax is already paid on the same income in both the countries and it empowers the Central Government to grant relief in respect of such double taxation. Clause (b) which is wider than

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

30. Sub-section (1) lays down that the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of another country. Clause (a) (i) contemplates situation when tax is already paid on the same income in both the countries and it empowers the Central Government to grant relief in respect of such double taxation. Clause (b) which is wider than

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

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

30,000 shares of SiRF USA at an exercise price of US $0.08 per share. The assessee also had an option of cashless exercise of stock options which is an irrevocable direction to the broker to sell the underlying shares and deliver the proceeds of sale of shares after 5 deducting the exercise / option price which was to be delivered

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

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section