THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gains or short term capital loss. Therefore, the tax stood cleared in the year 2016 through revised returns. This fact is not in dispute. After the petitioners filed their revised returns complaints come to be registered against all these petitioners invoking Section 200

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

Appeal is allowed

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

200/- per sq. ft. and the said view has been upheld by the ITAT. 9. Shri. Shankar argued that there was no transfer of Capital Asset. The plot was purchased by Shri. Aeranpurwala and it was his property. However, inadvertantly/erroneously, it was not debited in partner's account. He urged that in order to attract Section

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital gain earned by selling of the cement factory was assessed for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07. The department has accepted the same. However, the Tribunal disallowed the said 23 expenditure holding that the assessee had closed the business in the year 1995 itself and no document has been shown that they had incurred any expenditure during

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

capitation fee issue is concerned, the 18 submission made is that the writ petition filed in this regard by the students came to be dismissed by this court. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the complaint can be said to have been, even remotely, made out against the petitioner and thus, it is clear that the entire complaint

DEVON PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD., vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 48 of the 3 Income Tax Act, 1961, while computing capital gains on the sale of shade trees during the assessment year 2007-08? 2. Whether the findings of the Tribunal “that it was incumbent on the appellant to allege during the assessment proceedings that the trees which were now sold were in existence prior

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)

Capital Gains F. Income from other sources. (2) 'Perquisite' includes : (i) the value of rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer; (ii) the value of any concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer; (iii) the value of any benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost

SRI M SHANTHA KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition Nos.2176 & 11524/2012 (T-It) Between: Sri M Shantha Kumar Aged About 63 Years S/O Muniyappa Proprietor M/S Satya Hospital No.1, 1933/1, 1934 Kammanahalli Main Road Bangalore 560 084 ...Petitioner (By Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate) And: 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Queens Road, Bangalore 2 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Mission Road, Bangalore. ...Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate For R1& R2) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1St Respondent Dated 05.04.2010 Vide Annexure G & Etc. These Writ Petitions Coming On For Preliminary Hearing, This Day, The Court Made The Following:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (iv) the order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure-L) passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of penalty dated 19.05.2010. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The sole contention urged by the learned

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

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

200%. Feeling aggrieved, assessee challenged both orders passed by the CIT(A) (order dated January 27, 2011 and August 16, 2011) before the ITAT. By the impugned common order, the ITAT has dismissed assessee's appeals. Hence, these appeals. 1 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 - ITA.421/2014 4. Sri.A.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate mainly contended • That M/s.Oberoi, M/s.Janson and two other

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI. R. CHARUCHANDRA

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

Section 143(2) of the Act. After hearing the representative of the assessee, assessment order dated 21.12.2009 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) whereunder AO disallowed certain claims made by the assessee or in other words, added the following: 4 “Add: (i) Undisclosed investment in Money lending as discussed in Para 4 above

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

SHRI M SATHYANARAYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) on 31.12.2007. The Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.1,51,200/- as income from house property and Rs.2,30,000/- 3 towards long term capital gains

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks such as: ‘expenditure’, ‘wholly and exclusively’ and ‘incurred

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE BELGAUM TALUKA RURAL INDUSTRIAL

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

Section 96 of CPC is filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.248/2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for partition and separate possession and mesne profits. 2. The properties subject matter of the above suit are: (A-1) Partnership business