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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

gains could be computed, placing reliance on B.C.Srinivasa Setty supra. It appears to overcome this aspect, a machinery provision has been introduced by way of Section 50D of the Act. Though the said provision has come into effect from 1.4.2013, it certainly throws some light on the mode of computation under Section 48 of the Act. In the circumstances

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

gains could be computed, placing reliance on B.C.Srinivasa Setty supra. It appears to overcome this aspect, a machinery provision has been introduced by way of Section 50D of the Act. Though the said provision has come into effect from 1.4.2013, it certainly throws some light on the mode of computation under Section 48 of the Act. In the circumstances

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; 19 (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto: 49. (1) Where

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gains which accrued to the assessee on the basis of accrual and it is only in the year in question when the dollar rate stood increased, resulting in loss that the Department has disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is - 8 - important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department.” 10. Analyzing Section 43A [Un-amended] held that “what triggers

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains or factum of investments in two properties. It is pointed out that Section 54(1) was amended by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015, by the which the words 9 ‘constructed a residential house’ were substituted and the words ‘constructed one residential house in India’ was substituted. It is argued that the expression ‘a residential house’ used

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 SUBEX LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital Employed’ for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the Income- tax Act, 1961? - 3 - 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in holding that the cost of acquisition of companies cannot be treated as asset for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the Act? 3. Whether

M/S ARASOR CORPORATION vs. M/S XALTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

211(c) of this title. (j) Excepts as otherwise provided in § 313 of this title, whenever it shall be desired to renew or revive the certificate of incorporation of any nonstick corporation, the governing body shall perform all the acts necessary for the renewal or revival of the charter of the corporation which are performed by the board of directors

SMT. GEETHA vs. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA

Bench: N.ANANDA

gained an enduring benefit by means of the product development expenditure. The expenditure is not merely to facilitate the assessee’s business but expenses is used for development which earned him substantial revenues in the later years. Therefore, treating it as a capital expenditure, 7 the said expenditure was added back to the income of the assessee, of course

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

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

211 HASSAN DISTRICT. 6 . SRI R SATEESHA S/O SRI GOWDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT RAMADEVAPURA, YELAGUNDA POST, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R. VIJAYA KUMAR AND SRI. SUNIL M.V., ADVOCATES FOR R2 MS. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

capital, but the workman should also be entitled to participate in it. 103 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments with regard to “Transfer was malafide”: (i) The Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI .vs. GRINDLAYS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, MUMBAI AND ANOTHER reported

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

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

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

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER