M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

27 Gujarat para 7 W.P.42424/12 8 the learned Sr.counsel the amendment to the proviso to Sec. 54EC(1) w.e.f. from 1.4.2007 is over investments made on or after 01.04.2007 in the long term specified assets by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. However exemption over and above Rs.50 lakhs investment in Capital gain bonds under

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

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 PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

C R BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALORE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, UDUPI ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY OPPOSITE TO POST OFFICE AMBALAPADI,UDUPI .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA, ADVOCATE) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18-07-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.179/BANG/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

C R BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALORE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, UDUPI ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY OPPOSITE TO POST OFFICE AMBALAPADI,UDUPI .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA, ADVOCATE) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18-07-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.179/BANG/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

27,270/-. 3. The reasons recorded on 27.05.2005 for reopening the assessment were supplied to the assessee 5 on 26.07.2006. The reason for reopening the assessment was that the assessee had set off the carried forward business loss of earlier years to the extent of Rs.39,99,652/- against the income declared under the head 'income from capital gains' arising

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

1) of the Act makes a distinction from Section 54, inasmuch as the language employed, more particularly, the phrase “owns”. 19. Section 27 of the Act defines “Owner of house property” for the purposes of Sections 22 to 26 of the Act. Sections 22 to 26 found in Chapter IV-C postulates the income from house property. 20. Section 27

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

C” (hereinafter referred to as “the said goods”) and manufactured by AEEI. 5.1 AEEI declares and warrants that it will take such steps and means as may be necessary or desirable to prevent confusion or deception between the goods of SC and AEEI declares and warrants that:- (a) AEEI shall prominently display its Corporate name on “the said goods

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

C. Srinivasa Seetty [1981] 128 ITR 294(SC) dealt with the question whether capital gain accrue or arise when "Goodwill" of a business is transferred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 45 of the Act operates if there is a transfer of a (Assessment Year 2000-01) capital asset giving rise to a profit or gain

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

27 RAL as per the balance sheet as on 31-3-2001. The Appellate Authority held that the long term capital loss should be computed based on the value of share as per the balance sheet as on 31-3-2001 at Rs.3.11 per share and similarly the short term capital loss in respect of 3,50,000 shares sold

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

c) habitually secures orders in India, mainly or wholly for the non-resident or for that non-resident and other non-residents controlling, controlled by, or subject to the same common control, as that non- resident: - 24 - Provided that such business connection shall not include any business activity carried out through a broker, general commission agent or any other agent

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

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

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

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

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year