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

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

1) issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income –tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15(Annexure-‘B’); (iii) Declaring that Section 56(2) (vii) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has no application to the listed 3 shares of Wipro Ltd., that were gifted to Pioneer Independent Trust in the previous year relevant

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

153 C of the Act will taken as the year of search for the purpose of clause(a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 153A by making reference to proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C despite the fact that the first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C refers to second proviso to sub-section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

1,91,95,68,251/- made on account of capital gains. During the previous year relevant to AY 2017-18, a partnership firm namely M/s. Perpetual Investments, was converted into a private company [the assessee]. The said conversion entailed the transfer of the entire assets and liabilities from the partnership firm to the assessee company. Whereas the assessee claimed that

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

153 C of the Act will taken as the year of search for the purpose of clause(a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 153A by making reference to proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C despite the fact that the first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C refers to second proviso to sub-section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain was Rs.2,84,59,683/-. The assessee invested a sum of Rs.1,21,38,530/- in acquiring two residential houses. The balance amount unutilized was Rs.1,63,21,153/-. The assessee deposited a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- before 31.7.1996 in the nationalized banks for investment. The Assessing Authority was of the view that the assessee

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

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

153 (DELHI) and ‘GITA DUGGAL (2015) 228 TAXMAN 62 (SC). 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the 10 revenue submitted that clause (a) to proviso to Section 54F(1) does not apply but clause (b) to proviso to Section 54F(1) applies to the fact situation of the case. It is submitted that the question whether the property

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

gain arising on transfer of Capital Assets which was acquired by the assessee under a Will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the assets and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the assets? ITA.No.456/2017 - 6 - 3. Whether

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

1], Bangalore and intimated that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- from M/s. MTR Food Products and the same is exigible to capital gain tax as long term capital gains. 4. Subsequently, the learned Assessing Officer had issued the notice dated 09.01.2014 under Section 148 of the Act. On the request made by the petitioner

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

1], Bangalore and intimated that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- from M/s. MTR Food Products and the same is exigible to capital gain tax as long term capital gains. 4. Subsequently, the learned Assessing Officer had issued the notice dated 09.01.2014 under Section 148 of the Act. On the request made by the petitioner

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1) of section 148. The question which first arises is with regard to the validity of the reopening proceedings, which is by issuance of notice under section 148, reasons for which are to be recorded under sub-section (2). The assessee has an opportunity to challenge the reasons given for issuance 13 of notice and if the same are found

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

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10(38) of the Act and therefore he submits the order passed by the authorities are valid and legal and does not call for any interference. 12. From the material on record, it is clear the 30 acres of land in White Field belong to Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL). It became a sick industrial company. Before BIFR, a scheme

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the 10 relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable