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

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

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

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

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,BELLUNKE A.S

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. AOL ONLINE INDIA PVT. LTD

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

3 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 359 (Karnataka) I.T.A No.221/2015 6 Re: Question No.2 7. Shri. Shankar submitted that question No.2 is covered against the Revenue in ITA No.130/20074. The same was opposed by Shri. Aravind contending that ITA No.130/2007 is with respect to A.Y. 1998-99. Therefore, on facts, the said ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3) r/w 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals