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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital in nature and it is also not chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act when the assessing authority rightly brought to tax as by holding that the consideration received by - 3 - assessee towards sale of technical know-how was capital in nature of goodwill which is liable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains, when the Section contemplates exemption in respect of “a” house for the current assessment year? 2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the assessee is entitled to the - 6

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains tax on the Partnership Firm vide Assessment Order

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains tax on the Partnership Firm vide Assessment Order

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains, and also disallowed 50% of expenses on transfer claimed by the assessee. Besides this, certain other disallowances were also made by the Assessing Officer. Challenging the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted certain relief, but confirmed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act; the assessment

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)

6 Supreme Court Cases page 59 (State of West Bengal v. Sadan K. Bormal & Anr.) in support of the contentions that, a legal fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created. He has contended that, Section 115WB (2) has to be read down to mean that only items which satisfies the test of Section 115WA

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gain by the Pre Press company is liable to be assessed in the hands of express company under Section 26(2) of the Act. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under: The argument that sub-Section (2) of Section 26 read with the proviso thereto indicates that the total income of the person

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 2(47) of the Act and therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay any - 8 - capital gains. Accordingly, the order passed by the lower authorities were set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal. 6

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 26.11.2010 inter alia held that assessee

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

6. It cannot be disputed that by substitution of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act (IT Act) by the Finance Act, 2021, radical and reformative changes are made governing the procedure for reassessment proceedings. Amended sections 147 to 149 and section 151 of the IT Act prescribe the procedure governing initiation of reassessment proceedings. However, for several

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6. The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B”, vide its Order dated 22/02/2017 for AY 2011-12 held partly in favour of the Appellant – Assessee that Appellant Assessee was not liable to pay tax on ‘Distribution of Dividend’ as defined under Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

6 4. The learned Counsel would vehemently contend that the Tribunal wrongly interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act, reversed the findings of the Authorities while determining the assessment of income to capital gains. It is further contended that, no doubt, sub-section [2

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2. This appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial question of law; - 3 - “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the guidance value is the sale consideration for computing capital gain when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain of `1,44,68,032/- and had claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act on the ground that assessee had reinvested said amount for purchasing another property at Mumbai by paying an advance of `1,60,00,000/- as against total value of property at `3,25,00,000/-. Assessing officer has held that agreement to purchase

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

2. The assessee, a salaried person working in M/s IGUS India Private Limited, had filed a return of income showing the capital gains for the assessment year under consideration. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE: 3. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold the land of Angamaly, Kerala [original asset] to M/s. Fashion Jewellery vide sale deed dated

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

2. The respondent – assessee (ITA No.11/2017) was the owner of a land measuring 3.20 acres situated at Attavar village, Mangaluru. The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement i.e., JDA with M/s Mohtisham Complexes Pvt. Ltd., for construction of residential apartment (Ivory Towers) and commercial complexes (Ivory Enclave) on the said plot of land. The - 4 - assessee was entitled

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

6 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and issued demand notice. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30-03-2001 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the same on various grounds. The First Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail held

VIJAYALAXMI CO -OPERATIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

In the result, the above questions are answered in favour

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co- operative society. Reference was made to the Explanation appended to Section 80 P (4) - which lays down that a co-operative bank and a primary agricultural credit society, shall have the same meaning assigned to them in Part V of the Banking Regulation