COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

36. He also drew our attention to Section 46-A of the Act which provides for “Levy of capital gains on purchase by the Company of its own shares or other specified securities”. The said provision is also quoted below for ready reference:- “Section 46A: Where a shareholder or a holder of other specified securities receives Date of Judgment

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

36 have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) as they stood prior to 01.04.2021; in other words, the proviso mandates that if a notice could not have been issued under Section 148 as being barred by limitation under Section

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

36 ITR 175 (supra) and contended that Section 55(2A) does not include knowhow as capital 40 assets whose value shown to be taken to be NIL or at the cost of acquisition, though other assets are mentioned therein such as goodwill, trademark, brand name and right to manufacture. Therefore, the receipt is a capital receipt and not liable

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

36 months from the date of its purchase, hence the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of long term capital gains and the authorities have thus rightly given the benefit of short term capital gains, which is perfectly justified in law. It is further contended that the agreement entered into on 01.04.1995, on the basis of which advance

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

36. The salvo fired by Mr. Poovayya has met with a barrage of submissions submitted by Mr. A.S.Ponnanna, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. D. Ashwathappa, Additional Government Advocate, Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, Mr. S. S. Naganand and Mr. S.P. Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel, and by Mr. Zeric Dastur and Mr. Faisal Sherwani, the learned counsel. Instead of individually

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

36,500/- without attracting any levy of taxation. This episode has been made possible by getting away from Bangalore Stock Exchange and going to Magadh Stock Exchange to carry out the sale transaction of shares and by paying STT for claiming exemption from long-term capital gains arising on sale of shares under Section 10(38) of the Act. Therefore

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

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 for reopening the assessment did not exist and consequently the entire assessment is bad in law and liable

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

36 276C(2) of the Act. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the impugned action, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the impugned proceedings. …. …. …. …. 8. The gist of the offence under Section 276C(2

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

section 48, the 34 fair market value of the asset on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. The capital asset here, which was the land, could be considered as transferred to the AOP in the year in which assessee entered

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

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 2

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(1)’, ‘[2013] 34 taxmann.com 150 (Karnataka)’. The aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid decision, the third substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8 7. With respect to the fifth substantial question of law, it was pointed

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

36 years, 127(c). Ms. Sheron Ingrid Pereira, d/o late Flora Pereira, Aged about 27 years 127(a) to 127(c) all are r/a No. 189, Igrez Vaddo, Siolin, Marna, Bardez, Goa - 503517 128. Margret Anthony, d/o James D Cruz, aged about 62 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, 37 Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired