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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 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 with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

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

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

132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show- 20 cause notice issued under clause (b) of section

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

132 of the Act. While under Section 2(b) if any income chargeable to income tax under any head of income W.P.42424/12 22 other than ‘capital gains’ received or accrued after the due date of payment of the first or subsequent instalment of advance tax, neither anticipated nor in the contemplation of the assessee, while paragraph (c) refers

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

132 of the Act. It was noted that thereafter notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer [AO] determined the total income of the assessee at ₹1,89,11,81,757/-. The said determination was based on an addition of a sum of ₹1,91,95,68,251/- made on account of capital gains

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

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

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 INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

capital gains can be levied? 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent – assessee is carrying on the business in real estate. Admittedly, he owned 35 acres 6 guntas of 4 land at Kothanur Village. The entire land was converted from agriculture to housing purposes in the year 1992. The Bangalore Development Authority approved the plan

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that capital gains should be brought to tax in the year in which the dissolution of the firm takes place and not the year in which consequent to such dissolution the distribution of assets takes place as per Section 45[4] of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in arriving

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

132 search of the business premises of the assessee, the foundational facts having surfaced, a Section 153A notice was issued; in response, the assessee filed the return of Income Tax for the relevant Assessment Years. (b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

132 search of the business premises of the assessee, the foundational facts having surfaced, a Section 153A notice was issued; in response, the assessee filed the return of Income Tax for the relevant Assessment Years. (b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

132 search of the business premises of the assessee, the foundational facts having surfaced, a Section 153A notice was issued; in response, the assessee filed the return of Income Tax for the relevant Assessment Years. (b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice

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

gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 26.11.2010 inter alia held that assessee

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gains were computed based on the said agreement? 2. Heard Smt. H. Vani, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 19612 was conducted on 02.11.2001 and thereafter, a Notice dated 06.03.2002 under Section