COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

3 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 12 • During 2007, assessees have sold their lands duly converted for non-agricultural purposes, in favour of M/s. ELT Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., and others. The agreement and the sale deeds disclose that the lands sold are converted lands; • the Assessing Officer has rightly held that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

3 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 12 • During 2007, assessees have sold their lands duly converted for non-agricultural purposes, in favour of M/s. ELT Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., and others. The agreement and the sale deeds disclose that the lands sold are converted lands; • the Assessing Officer has rightly held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

3 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 12 • During 2007, assessees have sold their lands duly converted for non-agricultural purposes, in favour of M/s. ELT Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., and others. The agreement and the sale deeds disclose that the lands sold are converted lands; • the Assessing Officer has rightly held that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

3 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 12 • During 2007, assessees have sold their lands duly converted for non-agricultural purposes, in favour of M/s. ELT Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., and others. The agreement and the sale deeds disclose that the lands sold are converted lands; • the Assessing Officer has rightly held that

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 70(3) of the Act. An order was passed withdrawing an amount of Rs.51,06,737/- from long term capital loss and same has been taxed as short term capital gains

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3 :- Assessing Officer issued notice to assessee under Section 148 of the Act on 17.02.2012. Subsequently, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act came to be issued to assessee on 16.03.2012 and 20.09.2012 respectively. On the basis of the reply received, assessment order came to be passed on 19.03.2013 (Annexure-B). 4. Being aggrieved by said

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

70,745 13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section

M/S EMBASSY BRINDAVAN DEVELOPERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

gains tax. Adverting to Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act, he contended that jurisdiction under Section 263 could be invoked only in such cases where the order is passed without making inquiries or verification. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.1, CIT and another Vs. M/s. Cyber Park Development

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

70,745 11.It is further contended by the standing councel for the appellant /Revenue that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C

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

SMT DURGA KUMARI BOBBA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Appeal is allowed in

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

70,32,278/- minus the tax component of Rs.90,74,103/-. The appellant had agreed to pay the tax component as per Clause 7(1) of the share purchase agreement. She claimed deduction under 'capital gains' on the tax component under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The Assessing Officer did not allow

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

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

70,68,28,574/- allegedly paid to ‘Transport Creditors’. During the course of Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings, the Assessment Officer (hereinafter ‘AO’) had asked the Assessee to furnish details of Transport Creditors to whom the payment was made. The Assessee expressed his inability to produce any documents contending that his entire business office having been raided all books files, registers

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3. The tribunal by an order dated 04.01.2017 inter alia by placing reliance on its order passed in the earlier Assessment Year with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment (TPA) on account of interest free loan provided to the subsidiary held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment is possible only in cases where comparable uncontrolled transactions entered into between two enterprises are established

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

70,94,074/- in respect of depreciation on Intellectual Property Rights. 8 5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

70,94,074/- in respect of depreciation on Intellectual Property Rights. 8 5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 vs. M/S RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST

In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee

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

3 Assessing Officer 4 Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) 5 ‘KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act’ for short 6 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 276 (SC) para 70 - 5 - ITA No. 554/2018 5. In reply, Shri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Advocate, placing reliance on the decision of this court in Kammavari Sangham Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemptions)7 submitted that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

70,22,322 Mailchimp 9,59,272 51,60,278 61,19,550 Amazon 18,71,643 1,91,22,481 2,09,94,124 Total for all payees for each