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

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

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

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 of the statute as well as the notifications. Clause

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

vii) of the Act. The said provision carves out an exception. The exception carved out in the latter part of clause (b) applies to a situation when fee is payable in respect of services utilized for business or profession carried out by an Indian payer outside India or for the purpose of making or earning of income by the Indian

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 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

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

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

vii) of the Act, as it was in existence prior to its amendment with effect from 01.04.2008, confined the benefit of Financial Corporation and the expression ‘Financial Corporation’ included the Government Company as well as Public Company. It is further submitted that the assessee, namely, Vijaya Bank in any case, is a Public as well as Government Company

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common order dated 21/3/2013, the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeals rejecting the challenge made by the assessee with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, while granting relief against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer by following the earlier order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common order dated 21/3/2013, the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeals rejecting the challenge made by the assessee with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, while granting relief against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer by following the earlier order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common order dated 21/3/2013, the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeals rejecting the challenge made by the assessee with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, while granting relief against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer by following the earlier order

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof ; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

9. This appeal was admitted on 15.6.2011 to consider the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the transfer of shares by the appellant to another limited company would amount to sale of immovable property held by the company whose shares were sold by the appellant - company and the capital gains arising on such

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

9. The respondents have contended that by claiming compensation under the said Act of 2013, petitioners are actually claiming higher compensation than the compensation awarded in their favour under the said Act of 1894 and since there exists an equally efficacious and alternative remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation by way of reference to the reference court, the present petitions

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

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

9. The respondents have contended that by claiming compensation under the said Act of 2013, petitioners are actually claiming higher compensation than the compensation awarded in their favour under the said Act of 1894 and since there exists an equally efficacious and alternative remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation by way of reference to the reference court, the present petitions