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

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

119 at p. 123. “In State of Karnataka v. M/s. Hansa Corporation Reported in AIR 1981 SC 463 at pp 469-470, the Supreme Court observed as under: “There is always a presumption of constitutionality of a statute. If the language is rather not clear and precise as it ought to be, attempt of the Court is to ascertain

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

B”, vide its Order dated 22/02/2017 for AY 2011-12 held partly in favour of the Appellant – Assessee that Appellant Assessee was not liable to pay tax on ‘Distribution of Dividend’ as defined under Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) in terms of Section

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

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

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. 14.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 for the years

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

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.34/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 7/16 Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required

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

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

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

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 2

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

119. Fathima Mujeeb, d/o Amir Ahmed, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 120. Mary Dominic, d/o Dharmaraj, aged about 54 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 121. Mercy Sheela Victor, d/o S M Ross, aged about

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession on the 14 construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to, and by way of renovation or extension of, or improvement to, the building, then, the provisions of this clause shall apply as if the said structure or work

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 70(3) of the Act. An order was passed withdrawing an amount of Rs.51,06,737/- from long term

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,E.S.INDIRESH

b) being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return

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