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

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

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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G LAKSHMI ARUNA NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101 PAN:AFJPA 5974P …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS

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

1) issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income –tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15(Annexure-‘B’); (iii) Declaring that Section 56(2) (vii) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has no application to the listed 3 shares of Wipro Ltd., that were gifted to Pioneer Independent Trust in the previous year relevant

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

V- ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI GALI JANARDHANA REDDY NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI, SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101, PAN:AFBPR 9737D. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

V. CHANDRASEKHAR, ADV., AND SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADV., FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(2), R.P. BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD, OPP. RBI BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.546/(BANG)/2008

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.568/2015 BETWEEN : 1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085 2 . THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s ABB LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING BANGALORE-560 001 PAN:AAACA 3834B

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

V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES (BANGALORE) PVT.LTD BRIGADE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT ( BY SRI A SHANKAR, ADV. AND M LAVA,ADV.) THIS INCOME-TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE 2 ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGORE IN ITA NO.242/BANG/2000, DATED 06.02.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

v), (vi) and (vii) of sub- section (1), such income shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India." 22. The princip0al provision is Clause (b) of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The said provision carves

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gains of business or profession”. It is not the case of assessee that the expenditure incurred by them is covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the Act, and even if that was so the question of allowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act would not arise. 18. In our opinion, the expenditure towards the religious funds

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd, reported in (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). It is also argued that when the entire issue being revenue neutral, no addition is required. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “Capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

9 setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. With regard to the receipt of Rs.25.00 crores, towards transfer of technical knowhow is concerned, it is a capital receipt and not revenue receipt and not liable to be taxed and ordered for deletion. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated

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