THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1170/BANG/2008 DATED 30.01.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTL., TAXN.,) CIRCLE-II(1), BANGALORE AND ETC., 3 THIS APPEAL

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.989/Bang/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial question of law; - 3 - “Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging the order dated 2-1-2006 made in ITA No.81/Bang/2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’) setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority for the assessment year 2001-02. 3 2. The respondent/assessee M/s.Wintac

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.35/Bang/2015 relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The respondent – assessee (ITA No.11/2017) was the owner of a land measuring 3.20 acres situated at Attavar village, Mangaluru

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2003-04. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: 3 "(i) Whether

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE ITA.No.456/2017 - 2 - TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1431/BANG/2012 DATED:25.01.2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260A of IT Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 22-02-2010 passed in ITA No.1139/Bang/2010, for the Assessment year 2006-07, praying to i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein; ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.1139/Bang/2010, dated 22-02-2010. This ITA coming

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2015 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2014 on the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts

M/S KEMFIN SERVICES PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for 3 short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of ITA No.149/2011 pertains to Assessment year 2004-05, whereas, subject matter of I.T.A.No.70/2011 relates to Assessment year 2005-06. Since, common question of law arise for consideration in these appeals, they were

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED I.T.A. NO.601 OF 2019 2 22.04.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.1544/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW SATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1544/BANG/2017 DATED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1154/BNG/2009, DATED 29.05.2009. THESE APPEALS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These two appeals

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1154/BNG/2009, DATED 29.05.2009. THESE APPEALS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These two appeals

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

gains of the firm in the year in which the transfer has taken place in terms of the provisions of section 45[4] of the Act. 12 11. In support of such submission, Sri. M V Seshachala, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of ‘THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

gain’ and not ‘business income’. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 11. However, in the appeals preferred by the assessee, learned counsel declared that if this Court is not to enter into the finding of fact, possibly the appeals of the assessee would no more survive and the other question

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

gain’ and not ‘business income’. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 11. However, in the appeals preferred by the assessee, learned counsel declared that if this Court is not to enter into the finding of fact, possibly the appeals of the assessee would no more survive and the other question