M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee during the month of January 2007 filed revised returns declaring business loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business income and capital gain at Rs.56,97,511/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings found that the difference shown out of the sale of property could

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee during the month of January 2007 filed revised returns declaring business loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business income and capital gain at Rs.56,97,511/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings found that the difference shown out of the sale of property could

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains and other sources. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued on 20.08.2010. The Assessing officer vide order dated 29.12.2011 denied the exemption of Rs.11,30,20,000/- with regard to investment made in residential property holding that exemption is not available

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

69,52,235/- was determined and an order of refund of Rs.82.50/-Crores was issued. Subsequently, an order under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 10.08.2004 for refund of an amount of Rs.82.50/- Crores. Thereafter, an order under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 17.02.2003, by which Minimum Alternative Tax credit of Rs.68

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

69. Therefore, if prior to the amendment, there was no thorough provision granting the said benefit as the said benefit was conferred on the asessee under DTAs, the assessee was entitled to the said benefit as DTAs over-ride the provisions of Income Tax Act. 70. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

69. Therefore, if prior to the amendment, there was no thorough provision granting the said benefit as the said benefit was conferred on the asessee under DTAs, the assessee was entitled to the said benefit as DTAs over-ride the provisions of Income Tax Act. 70. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains of Rs.5,69,78,516/- made by the assessing officer? 3 (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

69, 80 & 96 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and grant all monetary and other benefits that flow from such application within a time frame as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. (vi) PASS such other order/s of this Hon’ble Court deems fit, including the award of costs

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

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

69, 80 & 96 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and grant all monetary and other benefits that flow from such application within a time frame as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. (vi) PASS such other order/s of this Hon’ble Court deems fit, including the award of costs

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

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

M/S TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

69 ITR 692, CIT VS. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD', 232 ITR 316, 'PCIT VS. WESTERN AGRI SEEDS LTD', 'CIT VS. J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD.', 309 ITR 371, 'CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT', 319 ITR 113, 'CIT VS. ASHOKA MILLS LTD', 218 ITR 526, CIT VS. 9 HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.', ITA NO.3/2009 and 'CIT VS. LUWA INDIA

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

69 years Prop. Gurukurpa Enterprises, R/a 'Sri Gurukruppa', Balaji Nagar, 3rd Block, Sira, Tumukur-572 137. Since deceased, represented by Legal Representative and son Sri. M. N. Shivakumar S/o. Late A. Narayana Swamy, R/a 'Sri Gurukruppa', Balaji Nagar, 3rd Block, Sira, Tumukur-572 137. …Appellant (By Smt. Vani H., Advocate) AND: The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

Capital Gains F. Income from other sources. (2) 'Perquisite' includes : (i) the value of rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer; (ii) the value of any concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer; (iii) the value of any benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost

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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of 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. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

69 taxmann.com 170(SC). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has vehemently argued before this Court that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in facts in initiating the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 without appreciating the fact that the proceedings under Section