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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that for the computation of capital gains arising on sale of equity shares of M/s.Recon Agro Tech Pvt Ltd., the loss under capital gains is to be computed by adopting cost of acquisition of Rs.0.10 per share when interse parties were interested persons and family members and the entire transaction

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings. (4)[(i) "scientific research" means any activities for the extension of knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

41 Profits chargeable to tax. (2) Where any building, machinery, plant or furniture,— (a) which is owned by the assessee; (b) in respect of which depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32; and (c) which was or has been used for the purposes of business, is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the moneys

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

4. The learned Counsel would vehemently contend that the Tribunal wrongly interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act, reversed the findings of the Authorities while determining the assessment of income to capital gains. It is further contended that, no doubt, sub-section [2] of section 55 of the Act was amended with effect from 1.4.2002 by inserting the words

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains at that point of time. Article 1 to 4 of the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2004 is reproduced hereunder: Article I- Assignment: 35 (1) The FIRST PARTY confirms that in pursuance to the development Agreement they have permitted the SECOND PARTY to carry out construction/ development on the Schedule Property. The SECOND PARTY is entitled to continue

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

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

4 (2010) 11 SCC 762 33 15. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT [(2007) 6 SCC 329] was upset. In Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2008) 13 SCC 369] after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

4. In the meeting held on 29.7.2002 a decision was taken to offer the land first to the promoters/sister companies jointly or severally with the reserve price of Rs.25 Lakhs per acre on the condition that the dues of the secured creditors and others as per the rehabilitation scheme are cleared by 31.12.2002 to enable them to release the title

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

4, which relate to the merits of the case at hand. Question 3 relates to the evaluation of the ‘fair market value’ of the property in question as on 1.4.1981. From the record it is borne out that the assessee had claimed the value of the property at the rate of Rs.261/- per sq. ft. but had submitted the valuation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

41,620 square feet, out of which 95% was for industrial use, but developed only 2,01,350/- square feet as per Joint Development Agreement, which works out to less than 90% and as per the approval granted by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the number of industrial units located in the Industrial Parks should have been five, whereas

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

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment, powers, functions

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital gain for the assessment year 2004-05 and that was accepted 9 by the Department. Even though the moveable and immovable assets of the company were transferred, the assessee has to incur other expenditure for the transfer of moveable and immovable. Accordingly, partly allowed the appeal by its order dated 31-3-2008. Being aggrieved by the said order

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

41,54,690/-. Accordingly, the company has paid the tax on capital gain as applicable to the original donor as described under Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act. 4

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