THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A is not sustainable. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD', (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC), 'CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD', (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), 'CIT V. SYNDICATE BANK', (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 287 (KARNATAKA), 'CIT VS. KARNATAKA BANK LTD', (2014) 226 TAXMAN 187 (KARNATAKA) 'CANARA BANK

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains on sale of such assets? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside that the 5 provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to banking companies as no accounts are drawn up as per the requirement of Schedule VI of the Companies

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A are satisfied in the case of the assessee?’ 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting 5 aside the disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

gains from business and profession”. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as “stock-in-trade”, certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

14A of the Act set aside the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue in the light of order passed by the tribunal in assessee's own case as well as in DCIT vs. M.N.DASTUR CO. PVT. LTD. in I.T.A. No.94/bang/2014. The tribunal also allowed