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 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

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

section 148 issued is bad in law and not in accordance with law and consequently the entire proceedings are unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstance of the case. 38. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that no capital gains can be quantified as the very computation provision fails on the facts of the case

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

40% shares can be held to be employer of the company and gains out of the allotment of share can be termed as perquisites or same has to treated as capital gains. This appeal is preferred by the assessee, which was admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 12.11.2010 on following substantial questions of law: i) Whether

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains from business and profession under Section 32 can be disallowed specially in case, where the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment made to purchase of software and has claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on such software. It is also pointed out that the intent of disallowance under Section 40

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

40(a)(i) of the Act. He has also contended that the income of non resident by way 6 of commission is to be considered as accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and has placed reliance

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

MRS ANITA GOVERDHAN LOEBBERT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

40%. 5. The assessees filed return of income in respect of A.Y.32009-10. The A.O.4 held that JDA was executed in the financial year relevant to A.Y and they were liable to pay Capital Gains tax. 2 Joint Development Agreement 3 Assessment Year 4 Assessing Officer - 8 - ITA No. 328/2018 C/W ITA No. 330/2018 ITA No. 332/2018 ITA No. 334/2018

MRS MONIKA GOVERDHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

40%. 5. The assessees filed return of income in respect of A.Y.32009-10. The A.O.4 held that JDA was executed in the financial year relevant to A.Y and they were liable to pay Capital Gains tax. 2 Joint Development Agreement 3 Assessment Year 4 Assessing Officer - 8 - ITA No. 328/2018 C/W ITA No. 330/2018 ITA No. 332/2018 ITA No. 334/2018

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof ; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

gain or loss shall be kept to the capital account and the same is not taxable. 6. The second substantial question of law is whether the ITAT was right in holding that assessee is entitled for set off of Book Loss of Rs.36,33,40,000/- in the computation of income under Section

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or professions shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. (c) The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section (1) of Section 37 vide Finance (No.2

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or professions shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. (c) The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section (1) of Section 37 vide Finance (No.2