THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

2(47) of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.03.2002. In reply to the said notice, the assessee-firm contended that it has paid the amount to the retiring partners standing on credit side in respect of capital accounts. There is no transfer of asset and therefore, they are not liable to pay any capital gains

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)(a) of the Act and refund of Rs.12,859/- was issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 148

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains is payable as there was no transfer which comes within the purview of Section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 148

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gain is entitled to set off against the carry forward business loss on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, was based on the sufficient and relevant reasons and further the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer

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

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,84,03,401/- which includes the income from the capital gain

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,83,08,077/- which includes the income from the capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of `1,71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term capital gain of `1,44,68,032/- and had claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act on the ground that assessee

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

section 45(2) of the Act. In the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO has come to the conclusion that by virtue of JDA dated 5.2.2005, there was a transfer of the capital asset giving rise to capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

section 45(2) of the Act. In the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO has come to the conclusion that by virtue of JDA dated 5.2.2005, there was a transfer of the capital asset giving rise to capital gains

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains as defined in Section 2(42A) read with Section 2(29A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4 The returns filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act but the Assessing Officer subsequently issued notice under Section 148

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

148 issued is bad in law and not in accordance with law and consequently the entire proceedings are unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstance of the case. 38. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that no capital gains can be quantified as the very computation provision fails on the facts of the case. 39. Whether

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that as per mandatory conditions for issue of notice under Section 148 for reopening have not been complied the entire assessment order is liable to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that the notice under section

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

148 of the Act. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee company was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80-I in view of the restriction imposed under clause-(ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 80-I of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 80-I of the Act reads as under

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