THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

capital gains and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act. It is further submitted that rental income derived from commercial 7 use of the property was considered as income from house property by virtue of Section 22 of the Act and the same was shown in the return. The tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner of Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

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. 15. 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

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. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

263 of the Act held that order dated 27.03.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 31.07.2008 under Section 143(3) of the Act making various addition / disallowances to the taxable income, in addition to the one's already made in the order dated

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

263 of the Act and formally dismissed the appeal before CIT(Appeals) for statistical purpose. Assessee challenged the same in ITA No. 254 and 255/Bang/2009. The ITAT restored the appeal on the file of CIT(Appeals). By his order dated June 30, 2010 under Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal