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

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. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

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

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof ; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

1A) prohibits transportation or storing of any mineral otherwise than by licence/permit; a business without licence/permit is made punishable under Section 21 of this Act. (b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

1A) prohibits transportation or storing of any mineral otherwise than by licence/permit; a business without licence/permit is made punishable under Section 21 of this Act. (b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

1A) prohibits transportation or storing of any mineral otherwise than by licence/permit; a business without licence/permit is made punishable under Section 21 of this Act. (b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

capital in nature. Further the Appellate Authority held that if certain expenses are to be reduced from the total turnover, deduction is to be calculated under Section 10A of the Act. The Appellate Authority also allowed set off of brought forward loss. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the revenue filed appeal before the Income

DEVADARSHINI INFO TECHNOLOGIES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.16707/2016 (T-It) Between Devadarshini Info Technologies Private Limited 23/2, 6Th Floor, Vittal Malya Road Bengaluru-560 001 Represented Herein By Its Director Mr. Deekshith K.M.

Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the Financial Year 2014-15. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee submitted that despite detailed objections filed before the said Authority, the said Authority has failed to decide the Date of order 21-11-2017 W.P.No.16707/2016 Devadarshini Info Technologies Private Limited Vs. Union of India & others. 3/4 objections

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession on the 14 construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to, and by way of renovation or extension of, or improvement to, the building, then, the provisions of this clause shall apply as if the said structure or work

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital expenditure or personal expenditure made wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’ and any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law same shall not be deemed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital expenditure or personal expenditure made wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’ and any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law same shall not be deemed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain under the Act. 11 It is also contended that a unit means a separate taxable entity. It is also argued that Section 80IA of the Act is a incentive provision granting tax benefit and therefore, the same has to be construed strictly and the provision of the taxing statute has to be construed in a manner, object / purpose

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

capital, but the workman should also be entitled to participate in it. 103 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments with regard to “Transfer was malafide”: (i) The Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI .vs. GRINDLAYS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, MUMBAI AND ANOTHER reported

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