THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

68,19,443/- as capital gains by adopting cost of construction as sale consideration based on JDA between the assessee and M/s R&S Turnkey Contractors Private Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which came to be allowed directing the assessing officer to adopt fair market value basing

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee. On examination of income tax returns and other details furnished by the assessee- Company

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Capital Gain of Rs.26,88,34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim

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

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu, reported in [2011] 14 taxmann.com 120 (Kar.), held that, under the JDA, the assessee had handed over possession of the land to the developer and that, in view of the aforesaid decision

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

68,126/- and declared as income from other sources. No relief has been granted insofar as the royalty is concerned. The First Appellate Authority was of the view that the assessee has shown the capital gain for the assessment year 2004-05 and that was accepted 9 by the Department. Even though the moveable and immovable assets of the company

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

68 of 2010: BETWEEN: M/S GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES (SINCE DISSOLVED) REP. ITS ERSTWHILE PARTNER SRI. A.S.CHINNASWAMY RAJU NO.160, (OLD NO. 104) R.V. LAYOUT, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020 … APPELLANT [BY SRI A SHANKAR & SRI M LAVA, ADVS.] AND: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 … RESPONDENT [BY SRI K V ARAVIND

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 clearly provides that it is not necessary to grant the relief of 8 specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. 6. It is also urged that where the language of the statute is clear an unambiguous, there is no room for application of either the doctrine of 'causes

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

68,52,920/-, under the head income from salary, house property, capital gains and income 4 from other sources and paid tax of Rs.49,57,706/-. The assessing officer issued a notice under Section

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

R. RAMAKRISHNAN vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

68 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, ARUNDEL WAY, CHERRYBROOK, NSW-2126 AUSTRALIA. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S.PARTHASARATHI & SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVS.) AND : 1 . THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, D-1/35, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2 . THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

68) of the Companies Act, 2013, the right of transfer of shares in a Private 5Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. I.T.A No.695/2019 C/W I.T.A No.696/2019 6 Limited Company is restricted and in this case, in the manner and to the extent appearing in the para 8 of the Articles of Association; • the expenses incurred have inextricable

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gain immunity thereafter once the certificate had been issued by the learned CIT a decade ago. They did not find any merit in the learned CIT assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed