P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Capital gain and the same has been accepted as such in the assessment proceedings. Last date for issue of notice u/s 148 is 31/03/2013. Last date for passing order u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,64,058/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

capital gains can be levied? 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent – assessee is carrying on the business in real estate. Admittedly, he owned 35 acres 6 guntas of 4 land at Kothanur Village. The entire land was converted from agriculture to housing purposes in the year 1992. The Bangalore Development Authority approved the plan

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

64 wherein dealing with the case of a partner who introduced a Capital of `12,20,000/- in the Partnership Firm and explained that Capital contribution to have been received by her as ‘Gifts’ and the donors of such ‘Gifts’ were also produced before the Assessing Authority and even though the Assessing Officer held that the ‘Gifts’ were not genuine

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gains which accrued to the assessee on the basis of accrual and it is only in the year in question when the dollar rate stood increased, resulting in loss that the Department has disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is - 8 - important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department.” 10. Analyzing Section 43A [Un-amended] held that “what triggers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain made by assessing authority relating to Rs.2,94,26,600/- as long term capital being transfer of land in “Devagiri Farms” by the assessee when the assessee was the owner of the said land and had gifted the same to his wife Smt. Anitha Purnesh through a registered Gift Deed dated 20.1.2003 subsequently assessee’s wife in turn transferred

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

64. Whether the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid benefit when India has no agreement with the States where tax is levied on the income of the assessee. 65. Section 91 of the Act specifically deals with the said question. The aforesaid Section reads as under: “91. Countries with which no agreement exists: - (1) If any person who is resident

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

64. Whether the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid benefit when India has no agreement with the States where tax is levied on the income of the assessee. 65. Section 91 of the Act specifically deals with the said question. The aforesaid Section reads as under: “91. Countries with which no agreement exists: - (1) If any person who is resident

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

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

64 YEARS 2. NCC URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED A SUBSIDIARY OF NCC LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NCC URBAN WINDSOR, 3RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE JAKKUR AERODROME, NEW AIRPORT ROAD, BENGLAURU 560064. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. J.S.R.RAJU …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.N.RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

64 YEARS 2. NCC URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED A SUBSIDIARY OF NCC LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NCC URBAN WINDSOR, 3RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE JAKKUR AERODROME, NEW AIRPORT ROAD, BENGLAURU 560064. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. J.S.R.RAJU …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.N.RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

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

MR SAWARMAL AGARWAL vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

64 YEARS R/AT No.28, 4TH CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, K.S.GARDEN BANGALORE-560027 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR J., ADV. FOR SRI HARISH V.S., ADV.) AND : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), ROOM NO.318, 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

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

SRI M SHANTHA KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition Nos.2176 & 11524/2012 (T-It) Between: Sri M Shantha Kumar Aged About 63 Years S/O Muniyappa Proprietor M/S Satya Hospital No.1, 1933/1, 1934 Kammanahalli Main Road Bangalore 560 084 ...Petitioner (By Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate) And: 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Queens Road, Bangalore 2 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Mission Road, Bangalore. ...Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate For R1& R2) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1St Respondent Dated 05.04.2010 Vide Annexure G & Etc. These Writ Petitions Coming On For Preliminary Hearing, This Day, The Court Made The Following:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (iv) the order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure-L) passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of penalty dated 19.05.2010. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The sole contention urged by the learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

64,54,375/-. As the returns was filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

64,54,375/-. As the returns was filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

64,54,375/-. As the returns was filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

64,54,375/-. As the returns was filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

64,54,375/-. As the returns was filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order