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

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

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 153A of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer [AO] determined the total income of the assessee at ₹1,89,11,81,757/-. The said determination was based on an addition of a sum of ₹1,91,95,68,251/- made on account of capital gains

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. SRI SHAILESH HARAN

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital gain? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal’s direction for reconsideration of the case can be said as perverse even though the Assessing Authority made addition under Section 68

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,51,429/- under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessing authority by an order dated 26.10.2004 disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the mandatory conditions stipulated in the scheme framed by the Central Government viz., Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme' for short

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

68,001 2. Interest on K.N.N.L. Bonds 48,50,000 3. Interest-others 91,30,754 4. Dividend-Mutual Funds SBI 72,60,031 5. Dividend-UTI 1,85,33,252 - 5 - 4. The assessee offered only the income from Sl.Nos.1 to 3 and contended that the dividend income on mutual funds received from SBI and UTI were exempt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

68,001 2. Interest on K.N.N.L. Bonds 48,50,000 3. Interest-others 91,30,754 4. Dividend-Mutual Funds SBI 72,60,031 5. Dividend-UTI 1,85,33,252 - 5 - 4. The assessee offered only the income from Sl.Nos.1 to 3 and contended that the dividend income on mutual funds received from SBI and UTI were exempt

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

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…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks such as: ‘expenditure’, ‘wholly and exclusively’ and ‘incurred