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

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 to Pioneer Independent Trust in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15; (iv) Quashing the Circular bearing No.6/2012 [F.NO.133/44/2012-SO (TPL) issued by Respondent No.4 03.08.2012 (Annexure

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that order of assessment made for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is liable to be set-aside for non-compliance of conditions under Section 153C of the Act, when the assessment order is made under the normal provisions

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that order of assessment made for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is liable to be set-aside for non- compliance of conditions under Section 153C of the Act, when the assessment order is made under the normal provisions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

iii. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, iv. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.3122/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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, CANARA TOWERS MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD UDUPI-576101, MANGALORE. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, UDUPI-576101. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK H.O. ACCOUNTS DEPT. MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED U/S.260-A

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 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

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. 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

capital gains' and 3 not under the head 'profit and gains from business or profession? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that provisions of Section 50C are applicable to the instant case of sale of subject land by the appellant? (iv) Whether

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

gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings. (4)[(i) "scientific research" means any activities for the extension of knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture

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

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) was issued. The assessee filed its reply to the notice and appeared before the authorities. The assessing officer visited the office of the assessee on 19.7.2011 and recorded the statement on oath of one Sri.Eswar Hariharan, Lease Accounts Manager, who had been authorized