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

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

1) issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income –tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15(Annexure-‘B’); (iii) Declaring that Section 56(2) (vii) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has no application to the listed 3 shares of Wipro Ltd., that were gifted to Pioneer Independent Trust in the previous year relevant

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

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the notification dated 29.6.2006 issued under Section 54EC and the explanation (b)(i) to sub-section (3), not imposing a limitation on the investment in the capital gain bonds, the amendment by Finance Act 2007 to explanation (b) of Section 54EC imposing a limitation of Rs.50 lakhs over the investment, with

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

6. It appears that in the course of scrutiny, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed 100% depreciation on rolls, claiming that they had purchased the rolls from BM Steels Pvt. Ltd., (for short “BM Steel”) and leased to Bellary Steel. That led the concerned authority to conduct survey under Section 133-A of the Act at the premises

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 PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains tax on the Partnership Firm vide Assessment Order

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains tax on the Partnership Firm vide Assessment Order

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

6. It is also contended that reasons recorded do not constitute the reason to believe and misinterpretation of the law would not result in reasons to re-assess and the material relied thereupon does not constitute 'reason to believe'. It is also urged that claim of set off was in accordance with decisions of Supreme Court and was based

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

6 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and issued demand notice. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30-03-2001 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the same on various grounds. The First Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail held

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

C” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment year 2013-14 raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the Tribunal was correct in law in remanding the matter to CIT (A) to decide eligibility of exemption under Section 54 in respect of repayment of housing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

6 was 8589.53 square meters, the assessee gave up 7575.37 square meters in favour of L & T (which is the developer of remaining adjoining property measuring 34 acres) and consequently, the assessee retained FAR relating to 1,014.16 square meters only. This was detected from the seized document vide A/DDR-1/5 at pages 46 and 64 under the head ‘1.6 Account

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

6 - Rs.53.10 Crores as long term capital gain and brought the entire sum of Rs.33.21 Crores received towards non- competition fee and interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Authority with regard to non- competition fee of Rs.30 Crores as revenue receipt, though the same satisfies the ingredients

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

6. Learned Counsel places reliance on the following Judgments, to contend that goodwill of the business is also transferred along with trademark from the assessee to M/s. Sharp Corporation and as such, the 9 income of ‘capital gains’ is assessable to levy of tax under the Act. [a] ‘S.C. CAMBATTA & CO., [P] LTD., v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain of `1,44,68,032/- and had claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act on the ground that assessee had reinvested said amount for purchasing another property at Mumbai by paying an advance of `1,60,00,000/- as against total value of property at `3,25,00,000/-. Assessing officer has held that agreement to purchase

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

6. Before we proceed to consider the materials on record to see whether the appellant has succeeded in showing that the Income-tax Officer could have no reason, on the materials before him, to believe that there had been any omission to disclose material facts, as mentioned in the section, it is necessary to examine the precise scope of disclosure