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

Appeal is allowed

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

capital gains tax. Adverting to Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act, he contended that jurisdiction under Section 263 could be invoked only in such cases where the order is passed without making inquiries or verification. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.1, CIT and another Vs. M/s. Cyber Park Development

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. 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 TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

55 YEARS S/O SRI. JOGINDER SINGH JOGI. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-12(4) NO.14/3, 4TH FLOOR RASTROTHANA BHAVAN (OPP. RBI), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 vs. M/S RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST

In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee

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

55,000/- as capitation fee in the guise of voluntary contribution. - 7 - ITA No. 554/2018 10. Shri Huilgol pointed out from para 18 of the impugned order that the assessee had filed an affidavit before the ITAT stating that no action under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, was initiated against the assessee. The ITAT has recorded that

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

M/S BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of;

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

gains of business and profession"? 2. Whether the Tribunal in law as well as facts correct in restricting the deduction for interest on borrowed funds u/s 24 only for the period after the building was let out, while clause (b) of Section 24 permits deduction of interest payable on borrowed capital during the previous year? 3. Whether the Tribunal

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE VRL LOGISTICS LTD

The appeal stands disposed off

Bench: S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV,VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9331-DB ITA No. 100006 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order passed in I.T.A. No. 2783/Bang/2017 relating to assessment year 2013-14. It is noticed that