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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G LAKSHMI ARUNA NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101 PAN:AFJPA 5974P …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI GALI JANARDHANA REDDY NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI, SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101, PAN:AFBPR 9737D. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED

MRS ANITA GOVERDHAN LOEBBERT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

2(47)(V) of the Income Tax, 1961; ” “Clause-14: POWER TO SELL UNDIVIDED SHARE AND CONVEYANCE AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT: 14.1. The OWNER hereby gives her express consent to the DEVELOPER and shall execute a power of attorney in favour of Developer empowering them to enter into agreements with the prospective purchasers to enter into agreement, subject to the terms

MRS MONIKA GOVERDHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

2(47)(V) of the Income Tax, 1961; ” “Clause-14: POWER TO SELL UNDIVIDED SHARE AND CONVEYANCE AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT: 14.1. The OWNER hereby gives her express consent to the DEVELOPER and shall execute a power of attorney in favour of Developer empowering them to enter into agreements with the prospective purchasers to enter into agreement, subject to the terms

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall 39 for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. SRI SHAILESH HARAN

Appeal is dismissed

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

47 OF 2021 BETWEEN : 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(1) BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL) AND : SRI. SHAILESH HARAN NO.3/4, BALAJI BUILDING H. SIDDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 002. PAN NO. ABYPS6916D …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. R. PRATHIBA, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) . . . . THIS

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

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 47. From this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between “stock-in-trade” and “investment” and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares