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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2) Where any building, machinery, plant or furniture,— (a) which is owned by the assessee; (b) in respect of which depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32; and (c) which was or has been used for the purposes of business, is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the moneys payable in respect of such

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

71,820/-. The assessee objected to the inclusion of capital gain to the book profit. However, the Assessing Officer confirmed that the capital gain has to be shown in the profit and loss account, it cannot be straight away credited to the capital reserve. 4. On appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the appellate authority, following the judgment

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital gain and the provisions contained in section 71(2) of the Act clearly stipulates that the loss must be set off against

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

71, RESIDENCY ROAD 3RD CROSS, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENT [By Sri M V Javali, Adv.] THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16.12.2005 PASSED IN ITA NO. 122/BAN/2003, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC., 2 THIS APPEAL COMING

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

71. It was contended on behalf of the revenue that, no revised return was filed by the assessee under Section 139 (5) of the Act claiming the relief under Section 90 of the Act - 87 - read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Only a letter claiming the said relief was filed before assessment and the same cannot be taken into consideration

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

71. It was contended on behalf of the revenue that, no revised return was filed by the assessee under Section 139 (5) of the Act claiming the relief under Section 90 of the Act - 87 - read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Only a letter claiming the said relief was filed before assessment and the same cannot be taken into consideration

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

71,643 Further, no claim has been made towards the rates and taxes to the Department of Mines and Geology for the assessment year 2002-03. The alternative claim with regard to capitalization of expenditure was also rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the expenditure has been claimed as revenue expenditure. Out of the other declared income

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

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

71,45,516/-. The addition/disallowance made to arrive at the taxable income. The respondent after assessing various issues relating to investment made by Deutsche Telekom Asia Pvt. Ltd., Telekom Centre Singapore and M.G.Chandrasekhar who have invested USD 75000000 (INR 3232500000.00), INR 30000 and 2839 Class C Equity Shares and 3000 Class E 5 Equity Shares respectively and in terms

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

71 further contended that each of the petitioners/workmen have opted for voluntary retirement scheme and received benefits extended under the said scheme and were relieved from service. It was contended that each of the petitioners having availed voluntary retirement scheme and received terminal benefits including voluntary retirement scheme benefits will not be a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired