COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

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

194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

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

194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. The appellant further declared that he had constructed a residential property during the year situate at 808/7 and 808/8 Kaikondanahalli, Sarjapur, Bangalore. The appellant claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee agreed voluntarily to offer

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

194 taxman 280 (Delhi)], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held thus: “6. For the purposes of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the Department, however, has sought to give an altogether different twist to the argument. His submission was that for the limited purpose, i.e. in the context of 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

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

194/- and also declared income from the house property for a sum of Rs.2,03,986/- and capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from other sources at Rs.1,55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

M/S ARASOR CORPORATION vs. M/S XALTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

capital stock; provided, however, that subsection (i) of this section shall not apply to nonstock corporations. 29 8 Del. C. 1953, § 312; 56 Del. Laws, c.50; 59 Del. Laws, c. 106, § 16; 64 Del. Laws, c. 112, § 56; 66 Del. Laws, c. 352, §11; 68 Del. Laws, c. 163, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 587, § 29, 30; 73 Del. Laws