THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gains or short term capital loss. Therefore, the tax stood cleared in the year 2016 through revised returns. This fact is not in dispute. After the petitioners filed their revised returns complaints come to be registered against all these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that order of assessment made for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is liable to be set-aside for non-compliance of conditions under Section 153C of the Act, when the assessment order is made under the normal provisions

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

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

6 business all through its existence. The receipt of rents and commission for assessment year 1994-95 were found as bogus. The immovable property was not utilized to earn paltry sums during the existence of the firm. The new partners were introduced and the old partners retired. This is a device adopted to transfer the immovable property. The incoming partners

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that order of assessment made for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is liable to be set-aside for non- compliance of conditions under Section 153C of the Act, when the assessment order is made under the normal provisions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) should be satisfied only at the time of succession and not at any time thereafter? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) should be satisfied only at the time of succession and not at any time thereafter? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

iii. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, iv. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.3122/Bang/2004 dated 05-01-2007 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore, in the interest

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, was based on the sufficient and relevant reasons and further the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, CANARA TOWERS MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD UDUPI-576101, MANGALORE. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, UDUPI-576101. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK H.O. ACCOUNTS DEPT. MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED U/S.260-A

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

6. This Court by order dated 22.06.2011 has admitted the appeal for considering the following substantial question of law; “Whether the finding of the Tribunal that sale consideration received by the assessee would be entitled to benefit under Sec.54 of the Income Tax Act, even though the sale was not completed and possession handed over to the assessee within

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s ABB LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING BANGALORE-560 001 PAN:AAACA 3834B …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.05.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1281/BANG/2010

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

6. As regards payment towards stamp duty amounting to Rs.12,76,800/- paid by way of Demand Drafts from State Bank of India, Bangalore and City Bank, it has been observed that the Tribunal is not able to identify to whom these accounts belong to and accordingly, directed the assessee to file all requisite details before the Assessing Officer

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

6 of the judgment reads as under: Two questions arose for determination, namely, whether the amounts received by the appellant for loss of agency was in 24 normal course of business and therefore whether they constituted revenue receipt ? The second question which arose before this court was whether the amount received by the assessee (compensation) on the condition

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

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