SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2) [relating to capital gains] and section 55(2)(b) [relating to cost of acquisition]. 30 Section 45 of the Act provides

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)

55 provided or to be provided by an employer to his employees during the previous year at a stipulate rate. He has submitted that, Section 115WA(1) of the Act of 1961 creates a legal fiction. The legal fiction created cannot be stretched to include items of expenditure which has no nexus with the object of the levy

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section 26(2) of the Income 10 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 24(2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 72 of the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. With regard to the benefit under Section 54F, the Appellate Authority held that the sale deeds were executed in respect of 2 flats in favour of the assessee on 10.09.2008 and 20.11.2008 respectively, wherein the assessee had purchased undivided share in the land over which the apartment building is being constructed. Further

KALAMESHWAR CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the above questions are answered in favour

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

55 YEARS. ... APPELLANT. (By Sri. H R KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE & SMT. PATRI SHASHIKALA K., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS. (By Sri. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED U/SEC.260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST ORDER PASSED

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

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

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

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

55 of original minutes book maintained by Union L-109 Copy of Service Certificate issued in respect of Office assistant Mr. Papanna L-111 to L-118 8 documents to show that Warehouse was part of Bangalore factory 26. He further contended that the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the petitions filed under Section

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

55,47,800/- earned on the sale of 50,000 equity shares of M/s.Diebold HMA P. Ltd., was liable to be brought to tax under the head “capital gains” and not “income from business” as held by the Assessing Officer despite the assessee increasing the profit and 5 loss account in respect of the value of the shares for each

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

55,47,800/- earned on the sale of 50,000 equity shares of M/s.Diebold HMA P. Ltd., was liable to be brought to tax under the head “capital gains” and not “income from business” as held by the Assessing Officer despite the assessee increasing the profit and 5 loss account in respect of the value of the shares for each

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 AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

55% to 6%, and the remaining 94% was divided between TAFE and APIL at 49% and 45% respectively. It is, thus, contended that the Company would hence not be entitled to claim carry forward and set-off of business losses in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the APIL

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

55% to 6%, and the remaining 94% was divided between TAFE and APIL at 49% and 45% respectively. It is, thus, contended that the Company would hence not be entitled to claim carry forward and set-off of business losses in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the APIL

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

55% to 6%, and the remaining 94% was divided between TAFE and APIL at 49% and 45% respectively. It is, thus, contended that the Company would hence not be entitled to claim carry forward and set-off of business losses in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the APIL