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

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

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.43,47,753/- on the assessee. The order

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

13. Further in paragraph 7 of the order dated 25.08.2014 in the assessment of long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh Nagar, measuring 4200 sq.ft as per which

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

13 the Assessment Year. The word employed by the legislature viz., 'set off against profits and gains' 'if any' of any business or profession carried on by him, and assessable for that Assessment Year 'clearly mandate that unabsorbed carried forward losses can be set off only against the income from the business carried on by the assessee which is assessable

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

13. Thus, Section 55[1] and 55[2] of the Act were amended in order to bring extinguishment of such a right to manufacture etc., within the ambit of the capital gains tax. It has been clarified that the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement to be determined in the same manner as for the goodwill. Goodwill is neither

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

13. Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for exemption of capital gains under Sections 54 and 54F of the Act as aforesaid. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] accepted the contentions of the 14 assessee regarding the property at Kodihalli which was gifted through gift deed to the wife and son of the assessee prior to the transfer

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

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

Section 271(1)(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

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

C 25 DEC.), ‘C.H.KESAVA RAO VS. CIT’, (1985) 156 ITR 369 (MADRAS), ‘CIT VS. OUSEPH CHACKO’, 271 ITR 29 (KERALA), ‘SANJEEV PURI VS. DCIT’, (2016) 180 TTJ 649 (DELHI-TRIB), ‘P.N.SHUKLA VS. CIT’, (2005) 276 ITR 642 (ALLAHABAD), ‘CIT VS. SMT.SHYAMA DEVI DALMIA’, (1992) 194 ITR 114 (CALCUTTA), ‘ ITO VS. SMT.ROHINI REDDY’, (2010) 122 ITD 1 (HYDERABAD), ‘BAJAJ TEMPO

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

13. In that view of the matter, as the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and contended that the assets and liabilities of the firm were taken over by the assessee as a going concern with effect from 30.03.1992, after the other partners retired and therefore, there is no capital gains