COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain shall be dealt within in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say.- …………………………… ………………………….. Thus, it is evident, that requirement of construction of a residential house in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 153A of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer [AO] determined the total income of the assessee at ₹1,89,11,81,757/-. The said determination was based on an addition of a sum of ₹1,91,95,68,251/- made on account of capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35) of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee also claimed short-term loss of Rs.5,02,05,005/- arising out of redemption of units with mutual fund. However, a revised return was filed showing nil income sans claiming any loss from mutual funds. 5. The Assessing Officer rejecting the contention of the assessee brought the income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35) of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee also claimed short-term loss of Rs.5,02,05,005/- arising out of redemption of units with mutual fund. However, a revised return was filed showing nil income sans claiming any loss from mutual funds. 5. The Assessing Officer rejecting the contention of the assessee brought the income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof ; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offense or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purposes of business or profession and no deductions or allowance shall be made in respect

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

251 ITR 84 - 10 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 (iii) It is profitable to see what Kanga & Palkhivala’s ‘Law and Practice of Income Tax’, Vol. II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus at pages 3316 – 17 states: “…A question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

capital merely to save 35% thereof as a tax. To add to this, 15 the assessee pays tax on entire lease rent which effectively and substantially reduces any tax advantage available by way of claim of depreciation. In the net result it will still loose more than 65% of its own money, which no person will ever do. Thus, there

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

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

RAJAPPA vs. THE 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

S B JAGADEESH 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