THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of `1,71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term capital gain

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

capital gain when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration and when the provisions of section 48 specify the “full value of consideration” is received or accrued?” 3. The respondent – assessee is an individual deriving managerial remuneration from M/s PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital gain and the provisions contained in section 71(2) of the Act clearly stipulates that the loss must be set off against

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

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital gains have been 5 taxed for the assessment year 2000-01. When there is no business activity itself, the question of incurring expenditure such as royalty paid, rates and taxes, legal profession fees, travel and conveyance, repairs and maintenance, salary wages, staff welfare, does not arise. Accordingly, a notice was issued under Section 144 of the Act to show

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

Appeal is allowed

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

capital 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

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. (2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under Sections 48 to 55 in respect of any short-term capital asset is a loss, the assessee shall

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

71. It was contended on behalf of the revenue that, no revised return was filed by the assessee under Section 139 (5) of the Act claiming the relief under Section 90 of the Act - 87 - read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Only a letter claiming the said relief was filed before assessment and the same cannot be taken into consideration

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

71. It was contended on behalf of the revenue that, no revised return was filed by the assessee under Section 139 (5) of the Act claiming the relief under Section 90 of the Act - 87 - read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Only a letter claiming the said relief was filed before assessment and the same cannot be taken into consideration

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain arising out of the sale of the above property of Rs.15,44,009/- after claiming deduction towards incidental charges for transfer of property, the cost of acquisition and the deduction admissible under Section 54 of the Act in respect of two properties purchased in Bangalore viz., Koramangala and Domlur, II Stage, Bangalore, respectively

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S PNB METLIFE INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

71,72 and 73 of the Act. The learned counsel further argued that the Judgment of ICICI Prudential Insurance Company Ltd., supra is not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the said Judgment in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that when Section

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:

71,45,516/-. The addition/disallowance made to arrive at the taxable income. The respondent after assessing various issues relating to investment made by Deutsche Telekom Asia Pvt. Ltd., Telekom Centre Singapore and M.G.Chandrasekhar who have invested USD 75000000 (INR 3232500000.00), INR 30000 and 2839 Class C Equity Shares and 3000 Class E 5 Equity Shares respectively and in terms

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 SUBEX LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital Employed’ for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in holding that the cost - 3 - of acquisition of companies cannot be treated as asset for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 3. Whether

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

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

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