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

57(iii) of the Act. 23 13. Section 115JB(5) of the Act reads as under: “(5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee being a company, mentioned in this Section.” Thus, by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 115JB, the application of other provisions

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

57(iii) of the Act. 23 13. Section 115JB(5) of the Act reads as under: “(5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee being a company, mentioned in this Section.” Thus, by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 115JB, the application of other provisions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

capital gain shall be dealt within in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say.- Thus, it is evident, that requirement of construction of a residential house in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. The appellant further declared that he had constructed a residential property during the year situate at 808/7 and 808/8 Kaikondanahalli, Sarjapur, Bangalore. The appellant claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee agreed voluntarily to offer

SRI ABDUL GAFFAR S/O SRI ABDUL RAHIM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

57 YEARS, SON OF SRI.ABDUL RAHIM, BEEDI MERCHANT & REAL ESTATE AGENT, NO.383, BANNIMANTAP ‘C’ LAYOUT, MYSORE. …. APPELLANT (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2 (1), MYSORE, NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE BUILDINGS, VISWESWARANAGAR, STERLING TALKIES ROAD, MYSORE – 570 008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.E.R.INDRAKUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.E.SANMATHI, ADVS) 2 ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

capital gain exemption bonds U/s 54 EC. I sold my site on 27.07.2012. I should have deposited in Bonds before 26.01.2013; however I could not put money in such deposits within this time period. I went to USA in this period for my personal work and stayed there for some time. In this period the purchase of bonds as required

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption

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-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

57,628/- for Assessment year 2003-04. The Return was processed under Section 143(1) on 05.04.2004 and an order of refund of Rs.82,69,52,235/- was determined and an order of refund of Rs.82.50/-Crores was issued. Subsequently, an order under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 10.08.2004 for refund of an amount of Rs.82.50/- Crores

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NUTRINE CONFECTIONERY CO. P. LTD.,

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

gains sustainable under Section 65 of the Act? 4. The Apex Court in the case of PNB Finance Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2008) 307 ITR 75(SC) has held as under: “17. As regards applicability of Section 45 is concerned, three tests are required to be applied. In this case, Section 45 applies. There

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Capital Gain of Rs.51,355/- to tax. 3. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2010 inter alia held that the assessee has not purchased the asset, in respect of which the 5 claim under Section 54F of the Act has been made and the assessee without prejudice

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

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains and income 4 from other sources and paid tax of Rs.49,57,706/-. The assessing officer issued a notice under Section

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure is nothing but an antithesis of the principles laid down by the CBDT in its above mentioned circular. On this ground itself find that the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax is not sustainable in law. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure is nothing but an antithesis of the principles laid down by the CBDT in its above mentioned circular. On this ground itself find that the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax is not sustainable in law. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce

THE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S B V REDDY MARKETING P. LTD

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

gain tax as held by the Assessing Officer? 5. The Apex Court in the case of PNB Finance Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2008) 307 ITR 75(SC) has held as under: “17. As regards applicability of Section 45 is concerned, three tests are required to be applied. In this case, Section 45 applies. There

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

57 TAXMANN.COM 439 (KARNATAKA). 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely Section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and Section 70 as well as the 10 para 5.2 of the Circular issued