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

13. There is no dispute that in order to obviate hardship to the assessees, the CBDT issued the order Annexure – N under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 permitting waiver of interest under Section 234(a), 234(b) and 234(c) of the Act on 26.6.2006 Annexure-N. Paragraphs 2(a) to (d) and 3 read

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

1) of the Act, having accrued to the successor-company, the capital gains tax imposed on the successor-company as held by the Tribunal is not justifiable. 13. He further submitted that while the assessing authority and the CIT(A) had imposed such capital gains tax on the erstwhile partnership firm, the Tribunal shifted the said tax liability

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

1) of the Act, having accrued to the successor-company, the capital gains tax imposed on the successor-company as held by the Tribunal is not justifiable. 13. He further submitted that while the assessing authority and the CIT(A) had imposed such capital gains tax on the erstwhile partnership firm, the Tribunal shifted the said tax liability

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

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

13. The respondent also further contended that the contention of the petitioner in accepting the nomination of the respondent has materially affected the result of the Returning candidate under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of R.P. Act is untenable and there is no 29 violation of provision of Sections 33A, 33B and Section 100(1)(d

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

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

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

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

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

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

D Unit, Nelamangala Unit- formulation. 3. The assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2001 declaring a total loss of Rs.3,68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

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 dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.989/Bang/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was admitted

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred these appeals challenging the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. 2. These eight appeals are taken up for consideration together as a common question of law is involved between the same parties but in respect of different assessment years