KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) although the shares in the successor company have been allotted in the ratio of capital accounts as stood in the books of the firm

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Capital Gains’ in the hands of the recipient in accordance with the provisions of Section 46-A of the Act and no such amount would be treated as dividend in view of exclusion part of Section 2

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

46 YEARS NO.2, WHITE ACRES CHIKKA-TIRUPATI ROAD KADUGODI POST WHITE FIELD BANGALORE-560 067. 1(b) SHAKUNTHALA DEVI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION PUBLIC TRUST SHAKUNTHALA DEVI COLLEGE NO.32/P3, 17TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT, NEAR BDA COMPLEX BANGALORE-560 102. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R(1)(b); SRI.K. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S CREST LAW PARTNERS R(1)(a) THIS APPEAL

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

46 taxmann.com 170 (Karnataka), for denying exemption under section 54F, is perverse and contrary to law? 4 2. The assessee, a salaried person working in M/s IGUS India Private Limited, had filed a return of income showing the capital gains

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under which, the goodwill amount is taxable.” The technical knowhow is an intangible asset, liable to be taxed under the head ‘Capital Gain’. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal holding that the consideration of Rs.25.00 crores received is also for not carrying out certain activities pertaining to the business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

capital gains can be levied? 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent – assessee is carrying on the business in real estate. Admittedly, he owned 35 acres 6 guntas of 4 land at Kothanur Village. The entire land was converted from agriculture to housing purposes in the year 1992. The Bangalore Development Authority approved the plan

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

46. The agreement has been drafted deftly. Hence it requires a close examination. The said agreement is between the transport service provider, called the "Customer", meaning thereby the permit holder, and the petitioner-Company, an aggregator. According to Condition No. 13.1, "the relationship between the parties under this Agreement is solely that of independent contractors." Moreover, the agreement

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 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. 7.1 It is further stated that upon transfer of the flats to the developer or its nominee, the assessee offered the income to capital gains tax in the subsequent Assessment Years 2007– 08 and 2008–09. The material on record indicates that capital gains were indeed offered to tax in the said

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10(38) of the Act and therefore he submits the order passed by the authorities are valid and legal and does not call for any interference. 12. From the material on record, it is clear the 30 acres of land in White Field belong to Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL). It became a sick industrial company. Before BIFR, a scheme

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 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

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

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2), leasehold interest is an intangible property and therefore, Section 50C is not applicable to intangible rights associated with land or building or both and is applicable to transfer of land. It is further submitted that a right to specific performance is not a land but is merely a right to sue and under the agreement for sale dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains of business and profession and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which