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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKE INC

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital asset situated in India. 12. In the instant case, we are concerned with the income accruing or arising from business connection. Till 2004, the word business connection had not been defined. However, by Finance Act, 2003, explanation (2) was inserted which came into effect from 01.04.2004. However, as is clear from the opening words of explanation

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

1) w.e.f. from 1.4.2007 is over investments made on or after 01.04.2007 in the long term specified assets by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. However exemption over and above Rs.50 lakhs investment in Capital gain bonds under Section 54EC of the Act, though was available to the petitioner, having not invested the said

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that in order to attract Section 45(4), the condition precedent is that there should be a dissolution of the firm and distribution of capital asset in which the outgoing partners should acquire interest in the capital asset and consequently the firm should cease to have any interest

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

9. A reading of the aforesaid provision will indicate that Section 149(1)(a) contemplates that if Section 149(1)(b) does not apply, then the period of limitation is 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year; in the instant case, the subject assessment year came to an end on 31.03.2015 and the applicable period of limitation

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 153D read with Section 144 for the assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, m the case of an assesses being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises - 12 - from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of winch is chargeable under the head ‘Income from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gain is not to be charged in the hands of the firm”. 9. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.Chythanya has submitted before us that Clause (xiii) Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 13/30 of Section 47 of the Act is a beneficial provision

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

gain is not to be charged in the hands of the firm”. 9. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.Chythanya has submitted before us that Clause (xiii) Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 13/30 of Section 47 of the Act is a beneficial provision

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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 read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant provisions of Section 14, 28, 41(2), 45(1), 56(1), 72 and 74(1) of the Act, which read as under: 14. Heads of income Save as otherwise provided

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47,434/- was claimed as an exemption under Section 54 of the Act and Rs.25 Lakhs is claimed as an exemption for making investment in REC bonds under Section 54EC of the Act. The contention of the appellant 6 was that out of the advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs received from M/s. Fashion Jewellery

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

9. Thus, it is contended that the Tribunal after elaborately considering the clauses in the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties, has rightly come to the conclusion that the ‘capital gains’ income is only towards the transfer of trademarks associated with the product ‘SHARP’ and not to the business of the assessee as a whole. The transfer of trademark

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

9 exercise having been undertaken by the assessee, Tribunal on appreciation of facts had found that assessee had reinvested the amount and thereby granted the benefit of claiming Long Term Capital Gain as provided under Section 54 of the Act. Hence, he prays for answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. In support of his submission

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital in nature and it is also not chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act when the assessing authority rightly brought to tax as by holding that

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

9. Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “Capital gains. 45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

capital importing countries, that is, developing nations. Here comes the principle of nexus, for the nexus of the right to tax is in the source rule. It is founded on the right of a country to tax the income earned from a source located in the said State, irrespective of the country of the residence of the recipient