COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

iii) the application dtd. 08.08.2006 made to the National Highways Authority to invest in the Bonds, the entire sum of Rs.1,82,00,000/- being the amount of capital gains since there was no limitation over such an investment at that relevant point of time, was rejected for not furnishing the PAN number, though furnished within seven days

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or body, of the previous year

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

iii) of Section 2(24) of the Act, which provides that income includes the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 17. This brings us to consider the scheme of computation of total income which is contained in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 14 deals with heads

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s ABB LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING BANGALORE-560 001 PAN:AAACA 3834B …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.05.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1281/BANG/2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

iii. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, iv. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.3122/Bang/2004 dated 05-01-2007 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore, in the interest

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) although the shares in the successor company have been allotted in the ratio of capital accounts as stood in the books of the firm

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) although the shares in the successor company have been allotted in the ratio of capital accounts as stood in the books of the firm

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, was based on the sufficient and relevant reasons and further the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains' as claimed by the Appellant? ii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that stock options did not constitute a 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Act? iii

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

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

14 items out of 21 items did not attract capital gains tax without taking into account the agreement and assignment deed in the proper prospective and consequently recorded a perverse finding by holding that the same cannot be brought 5 to tax both in the Block Assessment as well as regular assessment?” 3. Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind, appearing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

2) The amount of the capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

iii) in case of value of any money or capital asset received by a specified person from a specified entity referred to in subsection (4) of section 45, the amount - 9 - chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14. Mr. Percy Pardiwala, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant- Assessee Company vehemently submitted before us that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and vide para 7 of the Order Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 13/86 quoted above, it has unnecessarily