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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gain” and is not a gain from the banking business. - 30 - 15. This would clearly establish that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Indeed the assessing officer objected to the audit objection in giving a reply to the same. On the other hand, the assessing officer was of the firm opinion that the assessment

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

M/S DIFFUSION ENGINEERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital expenditure and if it is revenue expenditure, then the provisions of Section 37 shall apply. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed on: (1) CIT vs SWARAJ ENGINES LIMITED – [309 ITR 443 (SC)] (2) CIT vs SHRIRAM PISTONS AND RINGS LTD – [307 ITR 363 (DEL)] (3) CIT vs EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD – [124 ITR 151

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

151(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the mandatory conditions to assume jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act exist for issue of notice under section 3 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Whether the reasons recorded for issue of notice under section

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 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

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 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

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

151/- and created a demand of Rs.2,99,27,080/-. 3. The assessee challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was 5 dismissed by an order dated 02.02.2012. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short

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

gains from industrial undertakings after a certain date, etc.- (1) xxx (2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— (i) it is not formed by the splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence; (ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR JEEVVESHWAR SCHOOL, SHAHAPUR,DIST - YADGIR, KARNATAKA 585223 41 152. DR. R PRABHU VIKASH S/O. RAVICHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS 447, MANIAM VELAPPAN STREET, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE 640 138 153. DR. VIDHYA P S D/O. SINNA DURAI P, AGED 28 YEARS, 24, GANAPATHI NAGAR, LAKSHMIPURAM

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR JEEVVESHWAR SCHOOL, SHAHAPUR,DIST - YADGIR, KARNATAKA 585223 41 152. DR. R PRABHU VIKASH S/O. RAVICHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS 447, MANIAM VELAPPAN STREET, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE 640 138 153. DR. VIDHYA P S D/O. SINNA DURAI P, AGED 28 YEARS, 24, GANAPATHI NAGAR, LAKSHMIPURAM

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR JEEVVESHWAR SCHOOL, SHAHAPUR,DIST - YADGIR, KARNATAKA 585223 41 152. DR. R PRABHU VIKASH S/O. RAVICHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS 447, MANIAM VELAPPAN STREET, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE 640 138 153. DR. VIDHYA P S D/O. SINNA DURAI P, AGED 28 YEARS, 24, GANAPATHI NAGAR, LAKSHMIPURAM

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR JEEVVESHWAR SCHOOL, SHAHAPUR,DIST - YADGIR, KARNATAKA 585223 41 152. DR. R PRABHU VIKASH S/O. RAVICHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS 447, MANIAM VELAPPAN STREET, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE 640 138 153. DR. VIDHYA P S D/O. SINNA DURAI P, AGED 28 YEARS, 24, GANAPATHI NAGAR, LAKSHMIPURAM

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

151. DR. ANIL KUMAR S/O. GIRIDHAR KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-79, NEAR JEEVVESHWAR SCHOOL, SHAHAPUR,DIST - YADGIR, KARNATAKA 585223 41 152. DR. R PRABHU VIKASH S/O. RAVICHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS 447, MANIAM VELAPPAN STREET, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE 640 138 153. DR. VIDHYA P S D/O. SINNA DURAI P, AGED 28 YEARS, 24, GANAPATHI NAGAR, LAKSHMIPURAM