THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains and therefore, Section 45(4) of the Act is not at all attracted’. Lastly, he - 12 - contended that ‘prior to the date of dissolution, the land and building had been sold and registered by way of a registered document in the name of the assessee/company. Therefore, on the date of the dissolution, the said property

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 55(2) of the Act during the relevant assessment year. The Assessee had only a limited licence to manufacture the six items as a licence holder in view of the Assignment Deed. The agreement entered into between the parties, prima facie, discloses that what is transferred by the Assessee to M/s. Sharp Corporation, is goodwill of the business

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- 15 Salaries. 28. Profits and gains of business or profession 1The following income shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head" Profits and gains of business or profession",- (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; 19 (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto: 49. (1) Where

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Capital gains’ under the Act. In a recent case of Smt Krishna Bajaj Vs ACIT – 2014(41) Taxman.com 445 (Kar) the question for consideration before this Court was “Whether the authorities were justified in relying on either the guideline value for the purpose of stamp duty and registration charges, or the value adopted under the Wealth Tax Act, for determining

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

41 YEARS No.280/281, “PANCHAJANYA” A.T. HALLI LAYOUT, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI M.LAVA, ADV.] AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7[2]1 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION

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

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Gain from business, which contrary to law. In view of deeming fiction under Section 41(1) of the Act, 15 the Tribunal ought to have taken the deeming fiction to its logical end and allowed the expenditure against such income. Further, the order made by the Assessing Authority for the assessment year 2000-01 was set aside by the First

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NADATUR HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

41,50,338/- as a long term capital gain and Rs.4,354/- towards business income. The return was accompanied by the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, notice under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

gained any benefit from the order of the government without appreciating the fact that the transactions of the assessee with the government and that with M/s. 3 KPCL are on different accounts as one is on capital account and the other is on trading account and the debt due from the government is a capital account which cannot

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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies

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 WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then - 55 - only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under Section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total income

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then - 55 - only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under Section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of RS.7,41,04,606/- for Assessment year 2012-13? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the cost of the properties received in partial partition of HUF to be adopted as claimed by the assessee under Section