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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 14.Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

149/- by holding that “surplus” available both in Policy Holders Account and Share Holders’ Account is to be consolidated and only “net surplus” is to be taxed as income from insurance business without observing that income from life insurance business is liable to be treated differently when compared to income from other business (share holder’s account) since section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

149/- by holding that “surplus” available both in Policy Holders Account and Share Holders’ Account is to be consolidated and only “net surplus” is to be taxed as income from insurance business without observing that income from life insurance business is liable to be treated differently when compared to income from other business (share holder’s account) since section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. B. SUMANGALADEVI,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

capital gains and without there being any proof that the money seized in the hands of B.B.Swamy belongs to the appellant, erred in directing the revenue to adjust the amount of `10,00,000/- seized in the case of B.B.Swamy to the case of assessee and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also erred in confirming the Order of the Commissioner

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

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offense or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purposes of business or profession and no deductions or allowance shall be made in respect

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

149. DR. NISARGA T J AGED 26 YEARS W/O. MOHAN B, R/AT NO. 56, 1ST CROSS, SECOND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570022 150. DR. DEEPTHI APANNA D/O. H N APPANNA, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 531, 3RD MAIN, SUBRAMANAYPURA POST, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560061 151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR

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

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination