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

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

capital gain tax in terms of Section 54 EC of the Act. He placed reliance on the following decisions in this regard. (i) Artist Tree Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others (2014) 369 ITR 691 (Bombay). The relevant para 11 to 14 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted below for ready reference

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

127(c) all are r/a No. 189, Igrez Vaddo, Siolin, Marna, Bardez, Goa - 503517 128. Margret Anthony, d/o James D Cruz, aged about 62 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, 37 Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 129. Esthar N Raju, s/o Robert Rajamanikyam, aged about 61 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

2 is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department." After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid view taken by the Bombay High Court correctly states the principles of law and there is no need to interfere with the same.” The aforesaid decision

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains or factum of investments in two properties. It is pointed out that Section 54(1) was amended by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015, by the which the words 9 ‘constructed a residential house’ were substituted and the words ‘constructed one residential house in India’ was substituted. It is argued that the expression ‘a residential house’ used

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) (iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under Section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions? 3. Whether, the tribunal was correct in not following the decision of Kerala

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital assets as well as depreciation are both claimed as application of income in determining surplus/deficit during the year? 6. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the normal provisions of section 28 to 44 of the Act are applicable and depreciation is allowable to charitable trust, when in cases

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

127, 131, 133 to 136, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147 to 151, 155 to 158, 160 to 169, 171 to 180, 182 to 192, 196 to 201 but not true copy. iii. The advocate for the petitioner has not signed on the documents page Nos.128 and 129, iv. The petitioner has alleged the respondent is guilty of corrupt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. He further submitted that though the acquisition was in the year 2000, the valuation is made on April 1, 2003. It is not discernable from record whether

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. He further submitted that though the acquisition was in the year 2000, the valuation is made on April 1, 2003. It is not discernable from record whether

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion of the said Judgment of Bombay High Court as quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed is quoted below

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion of the said Judgment of Bombay High Court as quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed is quoted below

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion of the said Judgment of Bombay High Court as quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed is quoted below

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure is nothing but an antithesis of the principles laid down by the CBDT in its above mentioned circular. On this ground itself find that the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax is not sustainable in law. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure is nothing but an antithesis of the principles laid down by the CBDT in its above mentioned circular. On this ground itself find that the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax is not sustainable in law. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.548/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Yenepoya University 5/22 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.535/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) & Another Vs. M/s. Medical Relief Society of South Kanara 5/22 131 Taxman

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.531/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical Relief Society of South Kanara 5/22 Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman