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 band, being the limit set out in the said notifications. 11. It is in this backdrop of facts that petitioner claims to have not paid the tax of Rs.29,09,800/- and W.P.42424/12 18 did so only on 25.09.2007 Annexure – K after the amendment to explanation (b) to subsection 3 to section 54EC of the Act by Finance

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains without considering the provisions of section 45(2) and the assessee has thus understated the income and claimed excessive indexation. Thus, it was stated that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the year 2004-05. The assessment was reopened for the purpose of assessing the income from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

90,00,000/- and after claiming cost inflation index and improvement of Rs.13,49,752/- long term capital gain determined at Rs.6,76,02,248/-. Against the long term capital gains, the assessee has claimed exemption under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

90,000/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) came to be concluded determining the total income at Rs.5,20,000/-. A search came to be conducted in the premises of Assessee under Section 132 of the Act on 4.2.2004. Certain documents were seized. It was found from the seized records that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA BABU

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Capital gains tax for A.Y. 2007-08. The law on the point with regard to the transfer of shares in this case, is governed by Section 108 of Companies Act, 1956 which reads as follows: I.T.A No.410/2017 C/W I.T.A No.409/2017 9 "108. TRANSFER NOT BE REGISTERED EXCEPT ON PRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER (1) A company shall not register

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

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

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

SMT DURGA KUMARI BOBBA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Appeal is allowed in

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains' on the tax component under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction. The CIT(A) has allowed the appeal in part. On further appeal before the ITAT, the same has been dismissed. 4 5. Assailing the orders passed by the Revenue, Shri Shankar submitted that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

90% of the assessed tax, interest under Sections 234(A) and 234(B) of the Act was charged. The total unexplained cash credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

90% of the assessed tax, interest under Sections 234(A) and 234(B) of the Act was charged. The total unexplained cash credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

90% of the assessed tax, interest under Sections 234(A) and 234(B) of the Act was charged. The total unexplained cash credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before