THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gains or short term capital loss. Therefore, the tax stood cleared in the year 2016 through revised returns. This fact is not in dispute. After the petitioners filed their revised returns complaints come to be registered against all these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section

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

32 31.05.2022 with reference to Section 148A(b), which led to the respondents passing the impugned order. It is therefore clear that the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order has to be examined in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal’s case as well as the provisions of Sections

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

1) There should be a distribution of capital assets of a firm; (2) Such distribution should result in transfer of a capital asset by firm in favour of the partner; and 32 (3) On account of the transfer there should be a profit or gain derived by the firm. (4) Such distribution should be on dissolution of the firm

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

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, was based on the sufficient and relevant reasons and further the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

1% of the value of the share. The assessee indexed the cost of acquisition to Rs.3,12,77,964/- and arrived at long term capital loss of Rs.3,10,22,946/-. The Assessing Officer on verification 26 of the records came to the conclusion that buying and selling of the shares of RAL were between the interested persons and family

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s ABB LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING BANGALORE-560 001 PAN:AAACA 3834B …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.05.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1281/BANG/2010

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

32(1) of the 11 Act has used the expression ‘owned’ and ‘used’ simultaneously, whereas, the same has not been done in proviso to Section 54F(1) of the Act. It is argued that language of a taxing statute should ordinarily be understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of statute to effectuate the legislative

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

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

iii) in case of value of any money or capital asset received by a specified person from a specified entity referred to in subsection (4) of section 45, the amount - 9 - chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

iii) in case of value of any money or capital asset received by a specified person from a specified entity referred to in subsection (4) of section 45, the amount chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated

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

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(III) BANGALORE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(2),BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E R INDRAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL & E I SANMATHI.ADV.) 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1012/BNG/2007, DATED 07/10/2008 CONFIRM THE ORDERS

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

iii) through or from any asset or source of income in India; or (iv) through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India. 12. In the instant case, we are concerned with the income accruing or arising from business connection. Till 2004, the word business connection had not been defined. However, by Finance Act, 2003, explanation (2) was inserted

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

32. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes

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

capital expenditure) laid out or expended on scientific research related to the business. (ii) to (iv) xxx (2) For the purposes xxx of Section 32. 21 (2A) Where xxx of Section 32A. (2AA) Where the assessee xxx authority. (2AB) (1) Where a company engaged in the business of [bio-technology or in [any business of manufacture or production

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

32. The learned counsel for the Assessee Company, Mr. Pardiwala also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pokhraj Hirachand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1963] 49 ITR 293. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the expression ‘thereon’ occurring in Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act means ‘on the subject