COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; 19 (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto: 49. (1) Where

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

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

92,434/- as Dividend under Section 115-O of the Act, [2,933 shares ( `2,85,108 -10 ) = `83,62,21,764/-]. 8. Since the said Assessment Order was passed in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144 C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gain and not under income from business and consequently denied the exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, 1961 and consequently passed a perverse order on the fact and circumstances of the case.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing reliance on, (1) ALA Firm v. CIT, reported in (1991) 189 ITR 285; (2) Commissioner

SMT PRAMEELA KRISHNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: That, To M/S.S.I. Property Development Limited & Therefore, The Return Filed By The Assessee After A Delay Of Almost 2½ Years, Cannot Be Accepted.

Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 04/05/2012 passed in ITA No.1364/Bang/2010, for the Assessment Year 1995-1996, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, - 2 - ii. allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the ITAT in ITA No.1364/Bang/2010 dated 04/05/2012

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. CORPORATION BANK

Bench: That, To M/S.S.I. Property Development Limited & Therefore, The Return Filed By The Assessee After A Delay Of Almost 2½ Years, Cannot Be Accepted.

Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 04/05/2012 passed in ITA No.1364/Bang/2010, for the Assessment Year 1995-1996, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, - 2 - ii. allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the ITAT in ITA No.1364/Bang/2010 dated 04/05/2012

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter also, a similar argument

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. MSR AND SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED passed in ITA No.3189/2005 dated 14.9.2011 even when the said decision has not reached finality

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

DR H KRISHNA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

In the result, we do not find

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

92,75,000/-. 4 Thereafter, on 02.01.2007 a supplemental agreement was executed, in which sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.11,82,50,000/-. Thereafter, M/s Blue Cross Builders and Investors Ltd. executed a Power Of Attorney on 01.09.2007 in favour of the assessee. The assessee soled the aforesaid property on 10.04.2008 to one Rajendra Kumar Jain and the amount