COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted in 2004, assessees have not diverted the use of land but continued their agricultural operation. 4 Bangalore International Area Plan Approval Authority I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 14 They have offered huge sums of income as 'agricultural 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF

Appeal is dismissed by

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

gains whereas assessee is also claiming deduction of capital assets under Section 11 and application of income is arrived while declaring income?" 3. Heard Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Smt. Sheetal Borkar, learned counsel for the respondent. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12157-DB ITA No. 179 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits

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

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

DR H KRISHNA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

133(6) of the Act had filed copy of its return of income and copy of ledger accounts of the assessee, wherein the balance of Rs.50,00,000/- was shown as outstanding. It is also argued that the tribunal ought to have appreciated that sale consideration of Rs.21,75,00,000/- was adopted as against the amount of Rs.18

DEVADARSHINI INFO TECHNOLOGIES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.16707/2016 (T-It) Between Devadarshini Info Technologies Private Limited 23/2, 6Th Floor, Vittal Malya Road Bengaluru-560 001 Represented Herein By Its Director Mr. Deekshith K.M.

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) and further proceedings undertaken under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the Financial Year 2014-15. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee submitted that despite detailed objections filed before the said Authority, the said Authority has failed to decide the Date of order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

133-A of the Act at the premises of Bellary Steel on 1st June 2000. In the course of survey, various incriminating documents were seized/found. An inventory of rolls at the premises of Bellary Steel revealed that they had only 361 rolls in their stock as against 3702 rolls accounted both as purchased and leased by Financial institutions and leasing

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

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

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

133. DR LINGRAJ PATIL S/O RAMESH PATIL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT SARAF BAZAR GULBARGA -585101 134. DR VINOD BABU B AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O BALRAM P RESIDING AT NO.3, 7TH MAIN ROAD , VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-52 135. DR THOMAS JOHN AGED 29 YEARS S/O KM JOHN RESIDING AT VELLAPALLIL ENAMPALLI PO KOTTAYAM KERALA 686503 136. DR BRAHMA SHUKLA

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

133. DR LINGRAJ PATIL S/O RAMESH PATIL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT SARAF BAZAR GULBARGA -585101 134. DR VINOD BABU B AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O BALRAM P RESIDING AT NO.3, 7TH MAIN ROAD , VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-52 135. DR THOMAS JOHN AGED 29 YEARS S/O KM JOHN RESIDING AT VELLAPALLIL ENAMPALLI PO KOTTAYAM KERALA 686503 136. DR BRAHMA SHUKLA

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

133. DR LINGRAJ PATIL S/O RAMESH PATIL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT SARAF BAZAR GULBARGA -585101 134. DR VINOD BABU B AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O BALRAM P RESIDING AT NO.3, 7TH MAIN ROAD , VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-52 135. DR THOMAS JOHN AGED 29 YEARS S/O KM JOHN RESIDING AT VELLAPALLIL ENAMPALLI PO KOTTAYAM KERALA 686503 136. DR BRAHMA SHUKLA