THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

gains’. 6. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner were carried further in appeal by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate 9 Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.1163/Bang/07. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner

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

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

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

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

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 153A of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer [AO] determined the total income of the assessee at ₹1,89,11,81,757/-. The said determination was based on an addition of a sum of ₹1,91,95,68,251/- made on account of capital gains

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

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

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. 14.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 for the years

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KWALITY BISCUITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 147 of the Income tax Act, as the reason for reopening emanates from the books of accounts of the assessee from which the material evidence of escapement of LTCG has been discovered by the Assessing Officer with due diligence required for reopening of the assessment? 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

91,30,754 4. Dividend-Mutual Funds SBI 72,60,031 5. Dividend-UTI 1,85,33,252 - 5 - 4. The assessee offered only the income from Sl.Nos.1 to 3 and contended that the dividend income on mutual funds received from SBI and UTI were exempt under Section 10(35) of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

91,30,754 4. Dividend-Mutual Funds SBI 72,60,031 5. Dividend-UTI 1,85,33,252 - 5 - 4. The assessee offered only the income from Sl.Nos.1 to 3 and contended that the dividend income on mutual funds received from SBI and UTI were exempt under Section 10(35) of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI M KRISHNA ALVA

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 260-A of I.T. Act 1961, arising out of Order dated 18-01-2007 passed in ITA No. 129/BANG/2005, for the Assessment Year 1998-99, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, - - 2 ii. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

91,22,481 2,09,94,124 Total for all payees for each AY 26,58,10,137 25,83,25,859 - - 14 - ITA No. 11 of 2022 c/w ITA No. 12 of 2022, ITA No. 14 of 2022 & ITA No. 15 of 2022 10. He stated that, the payments made to the Facebook are only for the limited purpose

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

91,32,272/- as against the income declared at Rs.225,13,29,740/-. The main additions made to the assessment, which are the subject matter of this appeal relating to the claim of bogus transportation expenses of iron ore; illegal mining expenses; & personal expenses of Directors. The appeal filed against the order of assessment by the assessee/respondent came

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

91, 2ND MAIN 4TH CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT, VIJAY NAGARA, BANGALORE-560040 170. DR PRASANNA KUMAR S/O.PRALHAD R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.3-4-21, DADGIBASE BHALKI DISTRICT, BIDAR-585328. 171. DR KRISHNA SAGAR S R S/O RAMESH BABU S L, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/T SEENAPPA LINE, MAIN BAZAR HINDUPUR-515201. 172. DR SWETHA RAJSHEKAR LAKSHETTY D/O RAJSHEKAHAR LAKSHETTY, AGED ABOUT

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

91, 2ND MAIN 4TH CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT, VIJAY NAGARA, BANGALORE-560040 170. DR PRASANNA KUMAR S/O.PRALHAD R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.3-4-21, DADGIBASE BHALKI DISTRICT, BIDAR-585328. 171. DR KRISHNA SAGAR S R S/O RAMESH BABU S L, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/T SEENAPPA LINE, MAIN BAZAR HINDUPUR-515201. 172. DR SWETHA RAJSHEKAR LAKSHETTY D/O RAJSHEKAHAR LAKSHETTY, AGED ABOUT

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

91, 2ND MAIN 4TH CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT, VIJAY NAGARA, BANGALORE-560040 170. DR PRASANNA KUMAR S/O.PRALHAD R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.3-4-21, DADGIBASE BHALKI DISTRICT, BIDAR-585328. 171. DR KRISHNA SAGAR S R S/O RAMESH BABU S L, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/T SEENAPPA LINE, MAIN BAZAR HINDUPUR-515201. 172. DR SWETHA RAJSHEKAR LAKSHETTY D/O RAJSHEKAHAR LAKSHETTY, AGED ABOUT