SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 48 of the IT Act reads: " 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting

SMT DURGA KUMARI BOBBA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Appeal is allowed in

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

capital gains' on the tax component under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The Assessing

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs.1,47,79,298/- is to be taken as deemed profit on transfer of stock and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 26.11.2010 inter alia held that assessee

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

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 48 of the Act to arrive at the income taxable under the income from capital gains. The difference between

DEVON PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD., vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while computing capital gains on the sale of shade trees during the assessment

DEVON PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD., vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while computing capital gains on the sale of shade trees during the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

48 of the Act. It is also urged that Section 40 does not apply to a claim for depreciation and claim under Section 32 is a claim for deduction. Therefore, the amount claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head profits and gains from business and profession under Section 32 can be disallowed specially in case, where

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

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

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

capital asset. It merely enhances the productivity or the efficiency and therefore, it has to be treated as a Revenue expenditure. 8. We may record that in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax5 has held as follows: " 7. The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Capital Gains, [ Notification No. GSR 105(E) [45/2002 (F. No. 503/6/99-FTD)], dated 20-2- 2002.] [“India-Ireland DTAA”]. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining “royalties” would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, as construed - 48

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35) of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee also claimed short-term loss of Rs.5,02,05,005/- arising out of redemption of units with mutual fund. However, a revised return was filed showing nil income sans claiming any loss from mutual funds. 5. The Assessing Officer rejecting the contention of the assessee brought the income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35) of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee also claimed short-term loss of Rs.5,02,05,005/- arising out of redemption of units with mutual fund. However, a revised return was filed showing nil income sans claiming any loss from mutual funds. 5. The Assessing Officer rejecting the contention of the assessee brought the income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. 44.The impugned order passed by the ITAT

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

48. In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not concerned with those profits which would naturally be treated as “income” under the head “profits and gains from business and profession”. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares