L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

capital gains arising to an Individual or a HUF from compulsory acquisition of an agricultural land situated in specified urban-limit subject 33 to fulfillment of certain conditions for specified urban land) 2. The RFCTLARR Act which came into effect from 1st January, 2014. in section 96

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

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains and other sources. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued on 20.08.2010. The Assessing officer vide order dated 29.12.2011 denied the exemption of Rs.11,30,20,000/- with regard to investment made in residential property holding that exemption is not available

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 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the transfer had taken place. Consequently, the assessee was liable to pay capital gain tax on such transfer. 4. Challenging the aforesaid finding, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that, neither the agreement dated 30.6.1994 nor 27.2.1996 indicate that possession was delivered under those agreements. In fact, the terms

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 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the transfer had taken place. Consequently, the assessee was liable to pay capital gain tax on such transfer. 4. Challenging the aforesaid finding, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that, neither the agreement dated 30.6.1994 nor 27.2.1996 indicate that possession was delivered under those agreements. In fact, the terms

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

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

M/S PATEL MARIGOWDA AND BROS., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gains on such distribution? Without prejudice whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 45(4) are applicable to the assessee firm for the assessment year 96

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

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

96,000 shares of the said Company, each assessee owned 34,800 shares. They entered into an Agreement with KPMG2 and Khaitan & Co. Advocates in connection with transfer of the aforesaid shares to M/s MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, a Company incorporated in Germany for a consideration of Rs. 58 Crores. 4. The AO3 noted that the selling expenses

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

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

capital gains were computed based on the said agreement? 2. Heard Smt. H. Vani, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 19612 was conducted on 02.11.2001 and thereafter, a Notice dated 06.03.2002 under Section

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

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest