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

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

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

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

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

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14, 28, 41(2), 45(1), 56(1), 72 and 74(1) of the Act, which read as under: 14. Heads of income Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all income shall, for the purposes of charge of income- tax and computation of total income, be classified under the following heads of income:- A.- Salaries. B.-] C.- Income

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital in nature and it is also not chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act when the assessing authority rightly brought to tax as by holding that

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

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

capital field, as a 7 consequence of discharge of trading liability of the assessee the same would constitute cessation /remission of trading liability and therefore, provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act is attracted. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'COMMISSIONER VS. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.', (2018) 93 TAXMANN.COM 32 (SC), 'COMMISSIONEROF INCOME

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1)(INV), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14th DECEMBER, 2015, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under section 260-A of the Income

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

41 Rs.25.00 crores received on transfer of the technical knowhow was in the nature of capital receipt vide Office letter dated 18-3-2004 and treated the said amount as capital receipt. However, the assessee has not filed revised returns as contemplated under Section 139(5) of the Act. The three agreements produced by the parties clearly disclose that

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

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

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

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

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 Act, 1956 (1

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gains of business or profession”. It is not the case of assessee that the expenditure incurred by them is covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the Act, and even if that was so the question of allowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act would not arise. 18. In our opinion, the expenditure towards the religious funds

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offense or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purposes of business or profession and no deductions or allowance shall be made in respect

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination