THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

VI {‘Appellate Commissioner’ for short} as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Bangalore. 2. This appeal came to be admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount received of Rs.3.47,75,000/- by the assessee from L & T, the developer of the adjoining

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. 7.1 It is further stated that upon transfer of the flats to the developer or its nominee, the assessee offered the income to capital gains tax in the subsequent Assessment Years 2007– 08 and 2008–09. The material on record indicates that capital gains were indeed offered to tax in the said

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AMCO BATTERIES LTD.,

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 2(47)(VI) of the Act needs to be examined. Learned counsel for the revenue has also invited our attention to Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6.4, 7.1, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 10.2 and 16 has submitted that risk and rewards in the property have already been transferred in favour of the developer and in fact, the title has also been

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

vi) or clause (via) or clause (viaa) or clause (viab) or clause (vib) or clause (vic) or clause (vica) or clause (vicb) or clause (vicc) or clause (xiii) or clause (xiiib) or clause (xiv) of section 47. (iv) such assessee being a Hindu undivided family, by the mode referred to in sub-section (2) of section 64 at any time

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

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains. It is further 14 submitted that assessee is not entitled to produce the documents before this court without appropriate application which is supported by an affidavit. 9. By way of rejoinder reply, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this court may record a finding with regard to applicability of Section 50C in the fact situation of the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2(47), 45(3), and relevant extracts of 47(xiii) Section 48 and 49(1)(e) read as under: (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or 45 Capital Gains. (3) The profits or gains arising from the transfer

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

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

47. This takes us to the very concept of "lead generator". This is a term borrowed from marketing. Lead generation is the initiation of consumer interest, or inquiry into services or a business. The method of generating leads typically falls under the umbrella of advertising, but may also include other methods. Leads may come from various sources or activities

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

47) the word transfer includes relinquishment of rights?” 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J. Neeralgi appearing on behalf of Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue. 3 3. It appears that the Tribunal while dealing with the said aspects has observed thus: “16. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The question to be answered

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

47 or section 170 or to the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the demerged company and the resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case may be, shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates as if the succession or the amalgamation

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

capital gains, was not available. 3. The assessee controverted the said contention and had asserted that all conditions as specified in Section 47 (xiii) of the Act were duly complied with. And, appealed the re-assessment order. However, the CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's appeal. This led the assessee to file an appeal before the learned ITAT

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

47 167. N Narayana s/o Muniswamiyappa, aged about 62 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 168. K. Channigaraya, s/o Krishnachari, aged about 49 years, Working as Technician, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 169. S Shivanna, s/o C Rangappa, aged about 56 years, Working

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

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which