FABSUN ENGINEERING vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

Capital Gains were applicable. Assessee's challenge to the Assessment Order dated 25.08.1996 before CIT(A) in Appeal No.113/ITO-11(2)/A-I/12-13 failed. On further appeal in ITA No.948/Bang/2006, the ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessment Officer vide order dated 26.10.2007. 4. After remand, the Assessing Officer by order dated 31.12.2008, reiterated the earlier stand. The CIT(A) vide order

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

capital gains in the Assessment Years 2007–08 and 2008–09. In the return filed for the Assessment Year 2008–09, the assessee claimed the benefit of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 Section 54

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gain. It is also submitted that in case this court holds that the gains received on sale of share are not perquisites then the matter may be remitted to the 8 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as the Tribunal has not dealt with the issue of exemptions under Section 54

MR. DEBARSHI SENGUPTA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gain under Section 54 of the Act. The claim under Section 54/54F came to be rejected on the ground

M/S EMBASSY BRINDAVAN DEVELOPERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

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

54,32,043/- as tax payable and by adding surcharge, education cess and interest, a total demand of Rs.8,50,38,928/- was made. 4. On 05.03.2013, the CIT(A), Bangalore IV, passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short), setting-aside the Assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing

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

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

MRS MONIKA GOVERDHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

Section 53A of the T.P Act. 14. Clause 14.3 makes it clear that power to alienate would come into effect after the building is complete in all respects for human habitation and subject to issuance of clearance and occupation certificate. 15. Clause No.21 also makes it clear that owners of the property are liable to pay all taxes, levies

MRS ANITA GOVERDHAN LOEBBERT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,G BASAVARAJA

Section 53A of the T.P Act. 14. Clause 14.3 makes it clear that power to alienate would come into effect after the building is complete in all respects for human habitation and subject to issuance of clearance and occupation certificate. 15. Clause No.21 also makes it clear that owners of the property are liable to pay all taxes, levies

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

capital asset sold during the year. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 05.10.2009 inter alia held that there is a close nexus between the interest earned on the fixed deposits and the interest paid to the lenders and the creditors

M/S. KEMFIN SERVICES PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

54 YEARS, S/O LATE PANNALAL BASANIWAL) ... APPELLANT (By Sri.SHARATH, ADV. FOR MR.CHYTHANYA K.K, ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 11(5), BENGALURU ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31/01/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.82/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING THAT THIS

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 in ITA No.653(Bang) 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11, wherein