THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

40,00,000/- as advance between 12.04.2003 to 24.09.2003 as against the total consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer, as already noticed hereinabove, denied the exemption and brought the entire capital gain to tax. Section

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

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 to be taxed. The records clearly disclose that during the financial year 2000-01, the assessee-company

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capitalized and the same was not claimed as revenue expenditure, the claim of depreciation cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gain should have been paid on the sale consideration, is no reason to hold that when a share holder of BFSL transfer his share for a consideration, after complying 40 with the legal requirements, is not entitled to the benefit of tax exemption. All the authorities are carried away by this aspect of the matter and because the assessee

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

capital Rs.4,85,000/-, by order dated 26.02.2014. Similarly, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer had disallowed the privilege fee of Rs.829,41,58,944/- and made disallowance under Section 14-A 10 of the Act in a sum of Rs.60

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

40 (MUMBAI) and 'VIPIN MALIK (HUF) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2009) 330 ITR 0309 (DEL). 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extract of Section 54F of the Act, which reads as under: Capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

capital gains as offered by the assessee. He also disallowed the claim made under Section 40[a][ia] of the Act for non-deduction

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KHIVRAJ MOTORS

Appeal is hereby dismissed;

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 263 of the Act with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the same and consequently the appeal before the Tribunal has become infructuous? b) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the addition of Rs.53,26,567/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the 18% of the project cost of Rs.19.43 crores

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

capital gains amounting to certain amounts all through banking transactions with the stock brokers in relation to the advice the stock brokers had rendered. The stocks vary from JMD Telefilm Industries, Splash Media, Essar India and Alpha. Trading is both by the individuals and by the companies. But, the moment it is brought to the notice of all these petitioners