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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1

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

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 practice

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assesses had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent. write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure sourced out of borrowed or corpus donations or 15% of income set apart over a period of time, however, expenditure incurred out of the above sources cannot be termed as application of funds out of the income earned in a particular assessment year inasmuch as loan borrowed does not fall under the category of income earned

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation in respect of capital assets on which capital expenditure has been allowed in its entirety as application of income resulting in double deduction? 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure sourced out of borrowed or corpus donations or 15% of income set apart over a period of time, however, expenditure incurred out of the above sources cannot be termed as application of funds out of the income earned in a particular assessment year inasmuch as loan borrowed does not fall under the category of income earned

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held when deduction under section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1)(a) without appreciating the fact that the issue of application of income more than the income computed does not arise, except in a case where the assessee has incurred huge amount of capital expenditure sourced out of borrowed or corpus donations or 15% of income set apart over a period of time and even otherwise expenditure incurred

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY MR. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S.CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST NO.420, CHALASANI MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 066. PAN:AABTC0124G …RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:14/08/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA 897/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DAUGHTERS OF ST.MARY OF PROVIDENCE SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: 3. As stated above, the first

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S THE BANGALORE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: 3. As stated above, the first

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: 3. As stated above, the first

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: 3. As stated above, the first