M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 45(4) of the IT Act as long term Capital gains, is not sustainable. 13. It was argued by Shri. Shankar that by applying the same logic, the Assessing Officer has 4 (1984)17 Taxmann. 330 KAR (para 4) I.T.A No.201/2017 12 added short-term Capital gains at 30% on the building which was constructed on the plot owned

SMT P AMMANI vs. THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act calling upon the appellant to file her return. The return was accordingly filed. The assessing officer computed capital gains

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gains were computed based on the said agreement? 2. Heard Smt. H. Vani, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 19612 was conducted on 02.11.2001 and thereafter, a Notice dated 06.03.2002 under Section

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 accruing to beneficiaries which led to tax demands and with a questionable going concern status of the assessee, the issue had tax implications. Thus, respondent intended to revise order of AO and issued notice under Section 263 of Act 1961. 6 5. Petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied of the notice dated 08.02.2016 issued 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. 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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI V.MADHUSUDHAN

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 14.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SMT T N SHOBHA 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 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY(HUF)

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 13.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SMT T N SHOBHA 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 26.06.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT V. SOUMINI 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 13.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE 560086 42 159. DR. RANGANATHA S C S/O. LATE. CHANDRAPPA T H, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R./AT NO. 1727/8, SRI. RANGANATHA NILAYA, 3RD MAIN, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE 577 004 160. DR. ANKITHA

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE 560086 42 159. DR. RANGANATHA S C S/O. LATE. CHANDRAPPA T H, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R./AT NO. 1727/8, SRI. RANGANATHA NILAYA, 3RD MAIN, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE 577 004 160. DR. ANKITHA

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE 560086 42 159. DR. RANGANATHA S C S/O. LATE. CHANDRAPPA T H, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R./AT NO. 1727/8, SRI. RANGANATHA NILAYA, 3RD MAIN, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE 577 004 160. DR. ANKITHA

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE 560086 42 159. DR. RANGANATHA S C S/O. LATE. CHANDRAPPA T H, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R./AT NO. 1727/8, SRI. RANGANATHA NILAYA, 3RD MAIN, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE 577 004 160. DR. ANKITHA

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE 560086 42 159. DR. RANGANATHA S C S/O. LATE. CHANDRAPPA T H, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R./AT NO. 1727/8, SRI. RANGANATHA NILAYA, 3RD MAIN, SRINIVASA NAGARA, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE 577 004 160. DR. ANKITHA