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

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

d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 20184-15 (Annexure-‘A’). (ii) Quashing the impugned notice dated: 28.07.2022 bearing ITBA/AST/M/148_1/2022- 23/1044223868(1) issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income –tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15(Annexure-‘B’); (iii) Declaring that Section 56(2) (vii) (c) of the Income

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

capital gains band, being the limit set out in the said notifications. 11. It is in this backdrop of facts that petitioner claims to have not paid the tax of Rs.29,09,800/- and W.P.42424/12 18 did so only on 25.09.2007 Annexure – K after the amendment to explanation (b) to subsection 3 to section 54EC of the Act by Finance

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

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 02.03.2006 PASSED

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11. Mr.Chythanya submitted that in the absence of any specific time frame stipulated in Clause (b) of the Proviso to Clause (xiii) of Section 47, even if the shares are allotted to the erstwhile partners of the firm in a staggered or phased manner, the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

11. Mr.Chythanya submitted that in the absence of any specific time frame stipulated in Clause (b) of the Proviso to Clause (xiii) of Section 47, even if the shares are allotted to the erstwhile partners of the firm in a staggered or phased manner, the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred I.T.A.No.496/2007 against the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act (for - 3 - short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of two residential houses purchased and also holding that the assessee is entitled

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

D. The prayer sought for in this appeal is to set aside the said order by allowing the appeal and confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and thereby confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Bengaluru and with a further prayer seeking to set-aside the order passed by the Income

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

D.- Profits and gains of business or profession. E.- Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- 15 Salaries. 28. Profits and gains of business or profession 1The following income shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head" Profits and gains of business or profession",- (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 39/47 applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure sourced out of borrowed or corpus donations or 15% of income set apart over a period of time, however, expenditure incurred out of the above sources cannot be termed as application of funds out of the income earned in a particular assessment year inasmuch as loan borrowed does not fall under the category of income earned

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) assailing the order dated 06.11.2020 passed in ITA No.1576/Bang/2018 as well as the order dated 22.06.2021 in MP No.163/Bang/2020 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure sourced out of borrowed or corpus donations or 15% of income set apart over a period of time, however, expenditure incurred out of the above sources cannot be termed as application of funds out of the income earned in a particular assessment year inasmuch as loan borrowed does not fall under the category of income earned

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. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] dated 14.05.2015 passed in ITA No.1281/Bang/2010 relating to the assessment year 1997-98. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1), MANGALURU. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T ITA No.11/2017 is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal