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

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.34/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 7/16 Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

capital gains either in the original return or in the return filed consequent to notice issued under Section 153A of the Act and assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee during the month of January 2007 filed revised returns declaring business loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business income and capital gain

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee during the month of January 2007 filed revised returns declaring business loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business income and capital gain

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gains or short term capital loss. Therefore, the tax stood cleared in the year 2016 through revised returns. This fact is not in dispute. After the petitioners filed their revised returns complaints come to be registered against all these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section

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

153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 153A of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer [AO] determined the total income of the assessee at ₹1,89,11,81,757/-. The said determination was based on an addition of a sum of ₹1,91,95,68,251/- made on account of capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains instead of business income even when there was no provision in I.T.Act to take different stand in the returns in response to notice issued under section 153A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice the assessee failed to explain as to why certain purchases should not be treated as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3); therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of the purchases made from unregistered dealers. (c) The assessee took the matter in appeal