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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) although the shares in the successor company have been allotted in the ratio of capital accounts as stood in the books of the firm

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) although the shares in the successor company have been allotted in the ratio of capital accounts as stood in the books of the firm

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2 of the Act to be the price that the capital asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date. ‘Full value of the consideration’ has not been defined. The legislature has expressly drawn a distinction between the two phrases: ‘full value of the consideration’ and ‘fair market value’. The former would be the price

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

35 a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, as ever, to be decided in the affirmative in a doubtful case. It is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the Legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and it’s Act to be considered as void. The opposition between the Constitution and the law should

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2) of section 32 or sub- section (4) of section 35, to be carried forward, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section. (3) No loss other than the loss referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) of this section shall be carried for- ward under this 20 section for more than eight assessment years immediately

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the Assessee Company, Mr. Pardiwala drew our attention to the definition of Section 2(22) of the Act which defines the word ‘Dividend’ and the said definition to the extent relevant for his submissions, though we have indicated above that we are not deciding the question of taxability here

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

35 original assessment order dated 28.06.2016 was passed by him. It is significant to note that at the time of passing the said order dated 28.06.2016, the A.O. came to the definite conclusion that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) did not apply insofar as the petitioner was concerned despite having all details, information and material in this regard that

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

2,55,000 equity shares of 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

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

capital gains can be levied? 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent – assessee is carrying on the business in real estate. Admittedly, he owned 35 acres 6 guntas of 4 land at Kothanur Village. The entire land was converted from agriculture to housing purposes in the year 1992. The Bangalore Development Authority approved the plan

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

35. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there has been transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the facts of the case. 36. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that the mandatory conditions

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

35 years Son of Sri Satyanarayan Agarwal …Appellant (By Sri Jehangir D.J Mistri, Sr. Counsel for Sri. S.Parthasarathi, & Sri Mallaharao K., Advocates) AND: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11(2) 14/3, Rashtrothana Bhavan 2 5th Flr. Nrupatunga Road Bangalore …Respondents (By E.R.Indra Kumar, Senior Counsel for Sri Sanmathi, Advocate) This ITA is filed under Section 260A

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

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

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

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