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

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

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated by him as, stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him, such conversion or treatment;][or] [(iva) the maturity or redemption of a zero coupon bond; or] [(v) any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) should be satisfied only at the time of succession and not at any time thereafter? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) should be satisfied only at the time of succession and not at any time thereafter? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal

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

iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not serving the copy of the Tribunal 4 order dated 11.12.2008 as referred in the Tribunal order dated 19.02.2011 in respect of disposal of grounds with regard to issues on Section 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?". 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal

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 COMMISIONER 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

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

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

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

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

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains. It is further 14 submitted that assessee is not entitled to produce the documents before this court without appropriate application which is supported by an affidavit. 9. By way of rejoinder reply, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this court may record a finding with regard to applicability of Section 50C in the fact situation of the case

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

iv) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also held that the Capital Gains in the hands of the Holding Company (Mauritius Company) was also not chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the Indo-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gains of business or profession”. It is not the case of assessee that the expenditure incurred by them is covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the Act, and even if that was so the question of allowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act would not arise. 18. In our opinion, the expenditure towards the religious funds

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Authority on the issue of expenditure and maintenance of helicopter when the Assessee had 6 failed to discharge its onus to prove the said claim of expenditure as genuine and that the entire expenditure

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains at that point of time. Article 1 to 4 of the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2004 is reproduced hereunder: Article I- Assignment: 35 (1) The FIRST PARTY confirms that in pursuance to the development Agreement they have permitted the SECOND PARTY to carry out construction/ development on the Schedule Property. The SECOND PARTY is entitled to continue