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

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

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

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

c) of the Act stating W.P.42424/12 10 that with a view to remove the hardship caused to the tax payers the limitation of six months for making investment under Section 54EC of capital gains arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset between 1.1.2006 to 30.6.2006 is extended upto 31.12.2006; (v) the Central Government issued the notification No.380/2006

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

11. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee. The AO after having considered the entire materials placed on record and the admissions given by the assessee in respect of the transaction and so also on 12 the basis of oral evidence on record levied penalty of Rs.43

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

11. The assessee was intimated, vide office letter dated 07.01.2013 to obtain copies of relevant material which are in possession of CBI or any other agency and prepare the return of income showing the correct income earned during the financial year 2010-11. Based upon this penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS 11 deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor children are clubbed with the income

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

c) the partners of the firm do not receive any consideration or benefit, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, other than by way of allotment of shares in the company; and (d) the aggregate of the shareholding in the company of the partners of the firm is not less than fifty percent of the total voting power

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

c) the partners of the firm do not receive any consideration or benefit, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, other than by way of allotment of shares in the company; and (d) the aggregate of the shareholding in the company of the partners of the firm is not less than fifty percent of the total voting power

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

11 WORKS CO. LTD. VS. ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC), CIT VS. CHUGANDAS AND CO.', 55 ITR 17 (SC), 'CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD', 57 ITR 306 (SC) and 'CIT VS. VIKRAM COTTON MILLS LTD.', (1988) 169 ITR 597 and LETTER DATED 17.08.2020. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that undisputedly the assets sold

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

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

C” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment year 2013-14 raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the Tribunal was correct in law in remanding the matter to CIT (A) to decide eligibility of exemption under Section 54 in respect of repayment of housing

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1)(INV), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14th DECEMBER, 2015, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under section 260-A of the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

C. GOPALASWAMY reported in [2016] 384 ITR 307 (KAR). 10. Facts on hand would clearly indicate that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai for a total consideration of Rs.1,71,00,000/- on 04.02.2003 and thereby Long Term Capital Gains was arrived at Rs.1,44,68,032/-. In the return of income assessee claimed exemption under Section

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

11. The judicial pronouncement on the aspect of slump sale would indicate that the said slump sale would not be taxable neither as business income under Section 41[2] nor under Section 45 of the Act. In the case B.C.Srinivasa Setty Supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the charging section and computation section are integrated code

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

C' BENCH: BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO. 2119/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTEROLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT Mr.S.Parthasarathi & Smt.Sheetal Borkar, Advs

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

C' BENCH: BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1701/BANG/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTEROLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT Mr.Sanmathi

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

c) and issued demand notice. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30-03-2001 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the same on various grounds. The First Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail held that receipt of 1.10 crores