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 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3) read with Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Authority, vide order dated 18.02.2011 inter alia held that assessee had acquired foreign currency convertible bonds and after conversion of the same into shares, sold the same during the relevant previous year and disclosed short term capital gains from the transaction and paid tax thereon at the prescribed rate

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

Appeal is allowed

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

gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs.1,47,79,298/- is to be taken as deemed profit on transfer of stock and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming

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

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 43-B of the Act. No document has been produced to show that the assessee had incurred business expenditure and no receipt has been produced to prove the said expenditure. The First Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority insofar as rates and taxes is concerned. The Tribunal set aside the expenditure incurred with regard to traveling

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

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment, powers, functions

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

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

Appeal is allowed

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

3) of the Act and it - 4 - ITA.421/2014 was held that there was an undisclosed income of Rs.2,85,22,372/-. In the first round of litigation, assessee challenged the said order unsuccessfully before the CIT(A)1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) vide order dated June 27, 2008 remanded the matter on the file of Assessing Officer

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

200 (SC): TC 15R.823, the apex Court observed that the conditions required to be fulfilled to be entitled to deduction were that the interest must have been paid on borrowings incurred for the purpose of the business. The conditions laid down were as follows: (a) that money (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee, (b) that it must have

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

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

200. C R Ramanna, s/o Rangappa, aged about 56 years, Working as pharma Assistant, 58 Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 201. M Venkatesh, s/o Muniswamy Reddy, aged about 55 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049. 202. Byre Gowda, s/o T Anjanappa, aged about

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