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

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

vi) petitioner’s application and investment when accepted led to issue of ‘Capital Gains Bonds’ for Rs.50 lakhs during January, 2007; (vii) the limitation for making investment under Section 54EC was extended upto 31.3.2007 by letter dated 7.11.2007 enclosed to Annexure-J. W.P.42424/12 11 9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is useful to refer to relevant provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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 out an exception

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

1) that the transferor was directly or indirectly connected with the transferee, and (2) that the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee under section 12B. If the conditions of this proviso are not satisfied the main part of section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax Officer must take into

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Capital Gains, [ Notification No. GSR 105(E) [45/2002 (F. No. 503/6/99-FTD)], dated 20-2- 2002.] [“India-Ireland DTAA”]. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining “royalties” would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to Section 9(1)(vi

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1) that the transferor was directly or indirectly connected with the transferee, and (2) that the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee under section 12B. If the conditions of this proviso are not satisfied the main part - 17 - of section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax Officer must take

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:

vi) of the Act. In such a case, Capital 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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

gain arising on transfer of Capital Assets which was acquired by the assessee under a Will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the assets and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the assets? ITA.No.456/2017 - 6 - 3. Whether

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(III) BANGALORE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(2),BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E R INDRAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL & E I SANMATHI.ADV.) 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1012/BNG/2007, DATED 07/10/2008 CONFIRM THE ORDERS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the 17 record. Before proceeding further, it is apt to take note of statutory provisions viz., relevant extract of Section 2(47), 45(3), and relevant extracts of 47(xiii) Section 48 and 49(1)(e) read as under: (47) "transfer", in relation

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

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; 10. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is axiomatic that an amount payable towards interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sums chargeable under this Act shall not be deducted while computing the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession

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

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; 10. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is axiomatic that an amount payable towards interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sums chargeable under this Act shall not be deducted while computing the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession