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. 6. The assessing authority proposed to bring to tax the gain arising on the sale of the shares as short term capital gain on sale of the immovable property by holding that the transaction was virtually for sale of the immovable property to DLFCDL and the sale of shares was only a devise

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains” (whether relating to short-term Date of Judgment 31-07-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2012 Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. vs. M/s. GMR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 7/16 capital assets or any other capital assets).” In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the second objection of the AO in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment

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

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 154 of the Act was passed on 17.02.2003, by which Minimum Alternative Tax credit of Rs.68,07,83,946/- was withdrawn. While going through computation of income, it was found that net loss of Rs.8,17,44,119/- under long term capital loss after set off of short term capital gain

ZAMEER MIRJA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gain account immediately. The assessee purchased a residential flat for a sum of Rs.66,08,630/- . The assessee in the returns has sought deduction of Rs.51,63,464/- towards exemption under Section 54F. The Assessing Officer allowed the exemption by an order passed under Section 143(3) dated 17.02.1999. 2. The Assessing Officer later on issued notice under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI D G GOPALA GOWDA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gain as it is the job to be done by the Assessing Authority and therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in interfering with the order of the revisional authority. He submitted that the revisional authority while exercising power of revision, could have passed a final order on 6 merits, but it also has discretion and the power

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

R. RAMAKRISHNAN vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

capital gains with a prayer to condone the delay of two days in making the payment of Rs.25,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs] in REC Bond contending that the appellant was in Australia at that time and accordingly, there was a short delay for advising the remittance to REC Bond. However, the Commissioner declined to condone the delay

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains is assessable only as business income. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a notice under Section 154 of the Act on 13.12.2012 proposing

SRI S N RAVIKUMAR vs. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

capital gains declared by assessee to tax was accepted and demand came to be raised for respective assessment years. Undisputedly the quantum assessment proceedings has reached finality since assessee has not challenged the same. 4. The Assessee was treated as an assessee in default and a certificate under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was drawn mentioning

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

154 (Karnataka), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC), submitted that though Section 10A, as amended, is held to be deduction by the Hon’ble Apex Court has a bearing to the facts of the case. Thus, it was argued that the stage of deduction under Section 10A would

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

154 (Karnataka), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC), submitted that though Section 10A, as amended, is held to be deduction by the Hon’ble Apex Court has a bearing to the facts of the case. Thus, it was argued that the stage of deduction under Section 10A would

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDUSTRIAL HYDRAULICS PVT LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed

Bench: B.S PATIL,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

capital gain tax. 2. The assessee – M/s.B.P.C.Desai was a proprietary concern and later on, it was converted into a Private Limited Company under the name and style “M/s.Industrial Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd.” For the assessment year 1995-1996, return was filed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by the assessee claiming deduction under Section 80-IA. The Assessing Officer

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings. (4)[(i) "scientific research" means any activities for the extension of knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI C V MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,

In the result, we do not find any merit in

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

154. DR. KAVYARANI C D/O. CHANDRU B K, AGED 28 YEARS 928/2, WARD NO. 7, TAPCMS QTRS ROAD, PERIYAPATNA, MYSURU 571101 155. DR. PAVAN KUMAR K S/O. KALAIAH N, AGED 28 YEARS DOOR NO. 396, 3RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN, H BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU 570022 156. DR. BOOBATHI RAJA S/O. GOPAL R, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 7, RR GARDENS, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM