M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section 26(2) of the Income 10 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 24(2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 72 of the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 14.Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital in nature and it is also not chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act when the assessing authority rightly brought to tax as by holding that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

254, while there is no similar provision under Section 260A, so that it was inferred that the reference to the order of the Tribunal could only refer to the order passed in normal course and not to rectification order. Further, a reliance is also made in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Engineering and Foundry Works reported

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 TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

254 ELT 6 (SC) Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department vs. Shukla & Brother 11 CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF REVENUE: 7. Per contra, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Panel counsel appearing for respondents would submit that petitioner without exhausting the alternate remedy of appeal namely, approaching the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the same being

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

gained any benefit from the order of the government without appreciating the fact that the transactions of the assessee with the government and that with M/s. 3 KPCL are on different accounts as one is on capital account and the other is on trading account and the debt due from the government is a capital account which cannot

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

254/- [including 244A interest], was issued. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Notices were issued under sections 143[2] and 143[1] on 26.11.2001 which was received by the assessee on the same day. The assessee had claimed disallowance under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India v. CIT [317 ITR 218] and M/s. Sterling Foods v. CIT [237 ITR 579] that any ancillary

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1] Exchange gain on Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds [FCCBs] reinstatement of Rs.60,75,80,000/- [2] Deduction under Section 35D of the Act amounting to Rs.11,36,59,330/-. 4. The returns for the assessment year 2008-09 was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under section

ZAMEER MIRJA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO 1090/ 2006 BETWEEN SRI.ZAMEER MIRJA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT.NO.44, MAYFAIR APARTMENTS, NO.31, BERLIE STREET, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1 CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed; and

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

gain arising on 3 (312 ITR 254) Para 30 to 34 - 6 - ITA No. 329 of 2017 account of exchange fluctuation are not liable to tax as it is on the capital account. 11. The second substantial question is with regard to brought forward book loss in computation of income and Section 115JB of the Act. 12. We have carefully

SMT.K.SHASHIKALA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.22748/2021 (T - It)

Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act would not be applicable and there would not be any liability to pay capital gains tax. It is submitted that the Appellate Commissioner has merely copied the opinion of the Assessing Officer in his remand report and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Commissioner - 5 - also suffers from non-application

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

capital Rs.4,85,000/-, by order dated 26.02.2014. Similarly, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer had disallowed the privilege fee of Rs.829,41,58,944/- and made disallowance under Section 14-A 10 of the Act in a sum of Rs.60