COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

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

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

6. Thus, in substance, Shri. Sanmathi contended that the lands sold by the assessees are non-agricultural lands and fall within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that: • though the lands were converted

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

133(6) of the I.T.Act, to which a reply was submitted on 24.06.2021, pursuant to which, one more notice dated 25.06.2021 was issued by the 1st respondent, to which also, the petitioner submitted replies dated 28.06.2021 and 29.06.2021. Thereafter, respondents issued a Notice dated 30.06.2021 under Section 148 of the I.T.Act (after amendment). The petitioner challenged the said notice

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

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

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

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

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

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

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, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 135. A Deva Pushpam, d/o I M Arogyaswamy, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli

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

6. It appears that in the course of scrutiny, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed 100% depreciation on rolls, claiming that they had purchased the rolls from BM Steels Pvt. Ltd., (for short “BM Steel”) and leased to Bellary Steel. That led the concerned authority to conduct survey under Section 133-A of the Act at the premises

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

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