COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 250(4) of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to submit the Remand Report. The relevant extract of the remand report reads as under: “Addition as long term capital gain – Rs.2,94,26,600/-(point 7

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 HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

7 scrutiny has proceeded to frame the assessment order under Section 143(3) by order dated 22.12.2006, whereunder disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

7 scrutiny has proceeded to frame the assessment order under Section 143(3) by order dated 22.12.2006, whereunder disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains to be taxed in the hands of the recipient share holder, viz., Mauritius Holding Company in the present case, in India. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 16/86 18. He further submitted that the said Indo- Mauritius DTAA, of course now stands amended

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

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

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 B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

94 years, No.7, Shivaganga Mutt Road, Chamarajapete, Bangalore-18. 2. The State by Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bangalore. …Respondents ( By Sri Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate, along with Sri B.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, & Sri Shivananda Raj for Kochhar & Co., Advocates for R-1. Sri B.A.Belliappa, Advocate for R-2. ) R 2 Writ Petition filed under

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as Revenue, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench-B. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The assessee challenged disallowance of the benefit claimed regarding set-off of brought forward losses, whereas the Revenue filed an appeal

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks such as: ‘expenditure’, ‘wholly and exclusively’ and ‘incurred

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

7 of the order dated 25.08.2014 in the assessment of long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh Nagar, measuring 4200 sq.ft as per which the appellant had sold

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

7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred

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

7 section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee? 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that assessee is engaged in business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred