V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(47) of the Act. In this connection, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in 'SANJEEV LAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH', 365 ITR 389 and therefore, the consideration has rightly been subjected to capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

2 (47) of the Act; the AO did not accept the same and held - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34452-DB ITA No. 103 of 2025 that the conditions as specified under Section 47(xiii) of the Act were not fully satisfied and therefore, the benefit of excluding the transfer of assets as a transfer for the purpose

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

capital gains had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. -: 6 :- 7. Though Mr.Ashok Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for appellant-assessee has made valiant attempt to contend that Tribunal erred in considering the cross-objection filed before Tribunal on the ground after having observed that there was no direction to the Assessing Officer and as such

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

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2. Without prejudice, whether the computation of short term capital gains at Rs.68,86,826/- is in accordance with law and whether the excess over the cost of the building ought to have been taxed as long term capital gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that

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

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

2) for the purpose of determining the undisclosed income under section 158 BC of the Act;
notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued when the assessment is pending either by way of original assessment or by way of re-assessment proceedings;
the findings recorded by the ITAT are perverse because the cost incurred for acquisition of assets

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains are attracted as there was transfer of property as per Section 2(47) of the Act read with

MRS ANITA GOVERDHAN LOEBBERT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

capital gains tax stems out of the JDA. We have carefully perused the JDA. The relevant Clauses read as follows: “ Clause-6: PERMISSIVE POSSESSION: 6.1 XXXX 6.2 The OWNER shall irrevocably permit and authorize the DEVELOPER to enter upon the Schedule B Property and to - 11 - ITA No. 328/2018 C/W ITA No. 330/2018 ITA No. 332/2018 ITA No. 334/2018 develop

MRS MONIKA GOVERDHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

capital gains tax stems out of the JDA. We have carefully perused the JDA. The relevant Clauses read as follows: “ Clause-6: PERMISSIVE POSSESSION: 6.1 XXXX 6.2 The OWNER shall irrevocably permit and authorize the DEVELOPER to enter upon the Schedule B Property and to - 11 - ITA No. 328/2018 C/W ITA No. 330/2018 ITA No. 332/2018 ITA No. 334/2018 develop

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2) the question is of general public importance, or, (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that the issue is not settled by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court or 44 the Privy Council or by the Federal Court, or, (4) the issue is not free from difficulty, and (5) it calls for a discussion

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