DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refusing to condone the delay of about six months in making the eligible investment in the Infrastructure Bonds in terms of Section 54 EC of the Act, to claim exemption from Capital Gain

R. RAMAKRISHNAN vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

capital gains with a prayer to condone the delay of two days in making the payment of Rs.25,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs] in REC Bond contending that the appellant was in Australia at that time and accordingly, there was a short delay for advising the remittance to REC Bond. However, the Commissioner declined to condone the delay

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

119/- under long term capital loss after set off of short term capital gain of Rs.51,06,737/-. According to Assessing Officer 7 the set off of short term capital gain against long term capital loss was not permissible under Section

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

119 ITR 872. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the Order of the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition in R.L. Rajghoria Vs. Income-Tax Officer [1977] 107 ITR 347 held that the word ‘thereon’ appearing in Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 akin to Section 254 (1) of the Income

SMT. DR. SUDHA KRISHNASWAMY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - 3 - – respondent No.1 herein. It was contended that the assessee sold one vacant site at Tumkur on 06.02.2012 for consideration of Rs.52,06,000/- which resulted in a net capital gain

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

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

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

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

capital gain is computable on the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. Without prejudice whether the authorities were justified in assessing the firm after it had ceased to exist on the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the ground raised by the appellant with respect to the value adopted

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. B. SUMANGALADEVI,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

capital gains and without there being any proof that the money seized in the hands of B.B.Swamy belongs to the appellant, erred in directing the revenue to adjust the amount of `10,00,000/- seized in the case of B.B.Swamy to the case of assessee and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also erred in confirming the Order of the Commissioner

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time

M/S CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

119(2)(a) in F.No.400/29/2002-IT(B) dated 26-06-2006. 4.1 Waiver of Interest u/s 234C : Waiver of interest charged u/s 234C is governed by the guidelines specified in paragraph No.2 of the Board’s order (supra) as reproduced below:- “Para 2(b) Any income chargeable to income-tax under any head of income, other than Capital gains

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,E.S.INDIRESH

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality