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. During

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 14.Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

gains of the firm in the year in which the transfer has taken place in terms of the provisions of section 45[4] of the Act. 12 11. In support of such submission, Sri. M V Seshachala, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of ‘THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment, powers, functions

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

Capital Gains'. It was held that the Assessing Officer had, in the assessment concluded under Section 153(A) read with Section 143(3) of the Act, sought to tax the aforesaid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27807-DB ITA No. 584 of 2023 amount as Business Income on the basis of a written opinion of a Senior Advocate which

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

SMT P AMMANI vs. THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

132 of the Income Tax Act. The premises of the appellant was also searched. Several documents and material were recovered during the course of search. The assessing officer initiated assessment proceedings against Kaypee Exporters. Certain material belonging to the assesee was handed over on the ground that they were undisclosed income in the hands of the appellant. Pursuant

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

132. Parvathi N Kadam, d/o S Narayana Rao, aged about 60 years, Glaxosmithkline 38 Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 133. Sarojini Gopinath, d/o Narayana Rao, aged about 60 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 134. S Kameshwari, d/o M R Raman Nair, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 132(4A) of the Act is a rebuttable presumption. He adverted to the - 7 - ITA.421/2014 seized materials, which are produced at page Nos.114 to 136 of the appeal memorandum and submitted that except the agreement dated February 27, 1996, whereunder, the five individuals had obtained easementary rights, none of the documents bear assessee's signature. He submitted that Assessing

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