THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gain and the other deduction for short term capital loss while filing their returns under Section 139 of the Act. All was well up to September, 2015. The Department conducted search on all the petitioners herein under Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 of the Act reads as follows: “132. Search and seizure.—(1) [Where the [Principal Director General

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

ii) Quashing the impugned notice dated: 28.07.2022 bearing ITBA/AST/M/148_1/2022- 23/1044223868(1) issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income –tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15(Annexure-‘B’); (iii) Declaring that Section 56(2) (vii) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has no application to the listed 3 shares of Wipro Ltd., that were gifted

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 (1) which was issued on 21.12.2012 calling for the return of income for assessment year 2011-2012. In response to the aforesaid notice, respondent/ assessee filed a letter dated 28.12.2012, which was received on 01.01.2013, in which the assessee has stated that CBI has seized all the relevant material, including the books of accounts, during September, 2011. Therefore

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 (1) which was issued on 21.12.2012 calling for the return of income for assessment year 2011-2012. In response to the aforesaid notice, respondent/ assessee filed a letter dated 28.12.2012, which was received on 01.01.2013, in which the assessee has stated that CBI has seized all the relevant material, including the books of accounts, during September, 2011. Therefore

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

ii. allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.3121/Bang/2004 dated 05- 01-2007 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. I.T.A.No.516/2007 is filed under Section

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:

142(4) of the Act. In the process of assessment, a reference was made to the Transfer Presiding Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA of the Act. Certain information were sought from the petitioner in order to meet the assessment process. Petitioner is stated to have completed the requisite material sought by the authorities. Thereafter, several inquiries were made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

142(1) or Section 148 of the Act or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. Therefore, it is clear that in a case where the return is already filed, if that return does not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, power is conferred under aforesaid sections

PROF. P.N. SHETTY vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The

142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the said Act’) was issued to the appellant. The said show-cause notice was based on admitted facts. The appellant sold an immovable property held by him and out of the sale consideration received by him, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in the Capital Gain Account Scheme

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

capital expenditure) laid out or expended on scientific research related to the business. (ii) to (iv) xxx (2) For the purposes xxx of Section 32. 21 (2A) Where xxx of Section 32A. (2AA) Where the assessee xxx authority. (2AB) (1) Where a company engaged in the business of [bio-technology or in [any business of manufacture or production

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

142/-. The assessee ITA.No.456/2017 - 3 - acquired the property under the Will dated 24.08.1994 executed by her husband who died on 22.02.2006. Subsequently, the assessee obtained probate from the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under the order dated 30.10.2006. The husband of the assessee had acquired the property prior to 01.04.1981 and the assessee opted the date as 01.04.1981 to arrive

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

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 but has not filed the affidavit

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

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the loss arising from sale of subject land is chargeable to tax under the head 'income from capital gains' and 3 not under the head 'profit and gains from business or profession? (iii) Whether on the facts

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year:” 14.3 As per the proviso to section 147 of the Act, where an assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act has been made in any assessment year and if after expiry of four years from