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)

22. In view of the inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, a wider discretion is vested in the revenue for the purpose of taxation and ordinarily different interpretation of a particular tariff entry by different authorities as such cannot be assailed as a violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 23. In BENGAL SREI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] dated 14.05.2015 passed in ITA No.1281/Bang/2010 relating to the assessment year 1997-98. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Where at any time, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (xi) of section 47, any of the shares allotted to the transferor in exchange of a membership in a recognized stock exchange are transferred, the amount of profits and gains not charged

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

2) Where at any time, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (xi) of section 47, any of the shares allotted to the transferor in exchange of a membership in a recognized stock exchange are transferred, the amount of profits and gains not charged

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred I.T.A.No.496/2007 against the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act (for - 3 - short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of two residential houses purchased and also holding that the assessee is entitled

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

d). Besides the aforesaid issue, on facts/merits also certain questions have been raised which would require consideration of this Court. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant, who is assessed as an individual, has income from house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income Tax return

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

D.- Profits and gains of business or profession. E.- Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- 15 Salaries. 28. Profits and gains of business or profession 1The following income shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head" Profits and gains of business or profession",- (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried

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 SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

D THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.331 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD – 12(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS. (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES, NO.16/2, OVH ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) assailing the order dated 06.11.2020 passed in ITA No.1576/Bang/2018 as well as the order dated 22.06.2021 in MP No.163/Bang/2020 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) challenging the Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench [B] dated 6.2.2009 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The facts in brief are that

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.989/Bang/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was admitted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

D Unit, Nelamangala Unit- formulation. 3. The assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2001 declaring a total loss of Rs.3,68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

D G M E N T ITA No.11/2017 is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.35/Bang/2015 relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The respondent – assessee (ITA No.11/2017

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

22,50,000/- on 23.01.2003. In the books of accounts of the appellant, the loan was capitalized during the financial year ended on 31.03.2003. The appellant created the capital gain of Rs.51,71,820/- arising out of the sale of the land directly to the capital reserve and not to the profit and 4 loss account. The Assessing Officer took

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.1163/ Bang/07 (Assessment year 1999- 3 2000). The appellant has sought confirmation of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI {‘Appellate Commissioner’ for short} as well as the Assistant

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet