THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gain and the other deduction for short term capital loss while filing their returns under Section 139 of the Act. All was well up to September, 2015. The Department conducted search on all the petitioners herein under Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 of the Act reads as follows: “132. Search and seizure.—(1) [Where the [Principal Director General

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

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 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)

13(2) specifies that the Legislature shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the equality clause in Article 14. 32 16. Seventh Schedule to the Constitution consists of three Lists (i) Union List- only parliament can make laws (ii) State List- only state legislatures can make laws (iii) Concurrent List- both central government and state government have

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

c) and (d). Besides the aforesaid issue, on facts/merits also certain questions have been raised which would require consideration of this Court. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant, who is assessed as an individual, has income from house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income

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 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 55(2) of the Act during the relevant assessment year. The Assessee had only a limited licence to manufacture the six items as a licence holder in view of the Assignment Deed. The agreement entered into between the parties, prima facie, discloses that what is transferred by the Assessee to M/s. Sharp Corporation, is goodwill of the business

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), who disposed of the said appeal by the impugned Order dated 22/02/2017. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 7/86 9. The learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

C. RAMAIAH REDDY RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY SECTOR-D, BASAVANAGAR BANGALORE-37. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. A SHANKAR, SR. ADV. A/W Sri. M LAVA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27/01/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.121/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED

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

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

c] has to be disclosed in the profit and loss account which is mandatory requirement, as set out in these provisions under Schedule VI of the Companies Act, having not been followed, the Income Tax Authorities are justified in rescrutinizing the book profit as per Sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act. It is further contended that

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

C”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.1428/Bang/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07. 5. The respondent – assessee (ITA No.653/2016) claims to be a company involved in the business of transport and had filed the return of income for the period under consideration i.e., assessment year 2006-2007. The assessee – company had entered into a Joint Development Agreement

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

13,45,711/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,85,142/-. The assessee ITA.No.456/2017 - 3 - acquired the property under the Will dated 24.08.1994 executed by her husband who died on 22.02.2006. Subsequently, the assessee obtained probate from the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under the order dated 30.10.2006. The husband of the assessee had acquired the property prior

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.KURUHINSHETTY URBAN CO- OPERATIVE

In the result, the above questions are answered in favour

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

13 societies engaged in carrying on business in banking with its members continued to be entitled for deduction. The embargo put under Section 80P(4) are applicable only to a co-operative society, treated as a bank by a legal fiction created under Section 80P(4) as defined in the Explanation to the said section with reference to Part