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

46 taxmann.com 170 (Karnataka), for denying exemption under section 54F, is perverse and contrary to law? 4 2. The assessee, a salaried person working in M/s IGUS India Private Limited, had filed a return of income showing the capital gains for the assessment year under consideration. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE: 3. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

46,557/-. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. By that time, the assessee had died. His legal representatives – sons appeared through an authorized representative and furnished all the requisite particulars. The said particulars furnished disclosed that the assessee has sold his self-occupied house during the year for a sum of Rs.3

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

46 YEARS NO.2, WHITE ACRES CHIKKA-TIRUPATI ROAD KADUGODI POST WHITE FIELD BANGALORE-560 067. 1(b) SHAKUNTHALA DEVI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION PUBLIC TRUST SHAKUNTHALA DEVI COLLEGE NO.32/P3, 17TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT, NEAR BDA COMPLEX BANGALORE-560 102. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R(1)(b); SRI.K. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S CREST LAW PARTNERS R(1)(a) THIS APPEAL

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 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

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

10 The First Party further agrees and covenants as follows: 10.1 At its own cost and expense, it shall furnish and provide all such information including documents, correspondences, statements and data as may reasonably be required by the Second Party in respect of the contract property and its development and 23 selling rights including but not limited to a General

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

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

46 Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 164. Bhuvana Murthy, d/o D B Vishwanatha Rao, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 165. T Nagaraja, s/o Thirumalaiah, aged about 52 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli