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

M/S KEMFIN SERVICES PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 45 of the Act provides for capital gains arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade. However, it does not provide for levy of tax in cases where stock in trade is converted into or treated as capital asset. It is pointed out that the provisions of the Act were amended. It is further submitted that

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

144 C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), who disposed of the said appeal by the impugned Order dated 22/02/2017. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 7/86

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital gains have been 5 taxed for the assessment year 2000-01. When there is no business activity itself, the question of incurring expenditure such as royalty paid, rates and taxes, legal profession fees, travel and conveyance, repairs and maintenance, salary wages, staff welfare, does not arise. Accordingly, a notice was issued under Section 144

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

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

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 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for 4 the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

144(C) of the Act of 1961 on 12.10.2012, wherein the assessing officer has disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital asset sold during the year. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 05.10.2009 inter alia held that there is a close nexus between the interest earned on the fixed deposits and the interest paid to the lenders and the creditors

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital asset sold during the year. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 05.10.2009 inter alia held that there is a close nexus between the interest earned on the fixed deposits and the interest paid to the lenders and the creditors