KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority viz., CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the levy of capital gains tax on the partnership firm

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal on certain issues, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer has held that goodwill and technical know-how are one and the same whereas the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] has held that no evidence was produced

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gain. Sri.Thirumalesh relied upon the judgments reported in (2011) 237 CTR 227 (Madras) in the case of INDO TECH ELECTRIC COMPANY v/s DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and (2011) 337 ITR 178 (Delhi) in the case of THE 39 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v/s MEDIWORLD PUBLICATION PRIVATE LIMITED. On the other hand, Sri.H.S.Ramabhadran, learned counsel appearing for the assessee contended

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 T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

Capital Gains F. Income from other sources. (2) 'Perquisite' includes : (i) the value of rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer; (ii) the value of any concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer; (iii) the value of any benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

43 of the Act, according to which, it would be actual payment made or liability incurred. According to the appellant- Revenue, the liability of the assessee arose on the date when it was responsible/liable to pay as per the agreement, and not on the date of transfer of the technical know-how. 22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

43 of the Act, according to which, it would be actual payment made or liability incurred. According to the appellant- Revenue, the liability of the assessee arose on the date when it was responsible/liable to pay as per the agreement, and not on the date of transfer of the technical know-how. 22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

43 of the Act, according to which, it would be actual payment made or liability incurred. According to the appellant- Revenue, the liability of the assessee arose on the date when it was responsible/liable to pay as per the agreement, and not on the date of transfer of the technical know-how. 22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

43 of the Act, according to which, it would be actual payment made or liability incurred. According to the appellant- Revenue, the liability of the assessee arose on the date when it was responsible/liable to pay as per the agreement, and not on the date of transfer of the technical know-how. 22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 43-B of the Act. No document has been produced to show that the assessee had incurred business expenditure and no receipt has been produced to prove the said expenditure. The First Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority insofar as rates and taxes is concerned. The Tribunal set aside the expenditure incurred with regard to traveling

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

5) Whether the order of cognizance by the Economic Offences Court is proper and correct? … … …” 6 Crl.P.No.5480 of 2016 c/w 5481 of 2016 decided on 28-01-2021 38 The co-ordinate Bench answers the said issues as follows: “…. … 10. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the delayed payment of Income Tax would amount to evasion

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. The appellant further declared that he had constructed a residential property during the year situate at 808/7 and 808/8 Kaikondanahalli, Sarjapur, Bangalore. The appellant claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee agreed voluntarily to offer

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

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

5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have considered both aspects namely, the distance from BBMP and the lands falling within the notified area of BIAPAA. 17. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate