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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the searched persons which is factually not applicable to the proceedings for the year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

capital gains tax of Rs.29,09,800/- on 25.9.2007 under the challan Annexure-K. 4. Petitioner’s return was processed and after assessment was issued with an intimation under Section 143(1

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

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 to Pioneer Independent Trust in the previous year relevant

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the searched persons which is factually not applicable to the proceedings for the year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain account as claimed by them. 2. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on 23.7.1996 declaring a total income of Rs.3,46,500/-. The same was processed under Section 143(1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains'. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 30.01.2004 and a refund of Rs.4

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under

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

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47,434/- was claimed as an exemption under Section 54 of the Act and Rs.25 Lakhs is claimed as an exemption for making investment in REC bonds under Section 54EC of the Act. The contention of the appellant 6 was that out of the advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs received from M/s. Fashion Jewellery

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143[3] read with Section 254 of the Act holding that the consideration received by the assessee towards the sale of technical know-how was capital in nature as goodwill liable to be taxed under Section 45 of the Act as capital receipt at the value given by the purchaser in its financials. The Assessing Authority further held that

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

capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal

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

capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal

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

capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee. On examination of income tax returns and other details furnished by the assessee- Company, it was noticed that the assessee-company 4 entered into an agreement of sale of two Units i.e. Unit at Jigani and Bannerghatta Unit

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

143(3) of the Act and the order dated 11.11.1994, accepting the same should not have issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, which is barred by the first proviso to Section 147 and the proceedings now initiated is void-ab-initio. They also pointed out that the stand of the assessing authority that there has been a dissolution