THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed; and

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

gain or loss shall be kept to the capital account and the same is not taxable. 6. The second substantial question of law is whether the ITAT was right in holding that assessee is entitled for set

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

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

Capital gains added by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 15. Re-Disallowance of premium on Insurance Policy Rs.3,33,333/- I.T.A No.201/2017 13 Assessee Firm had taken a Insurance Policy on its Partner Shri. Aeranpurwala. The assessee has held that Shri. Aeranpurwala had become a Director of another Company in which the business was carried on. Assessee contended before

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains from business and profession under Section 32 can be disallowed specially in case, where the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment made to purchase of software and has claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on such software. It is also pointed out that the intent of disallowance under Section

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, 'A' BENCH BEARING IN ITA NO.243/BANG/2014. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

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

Appeal is allowed

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

setting-aside the Assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer passed fresh order on 18.04.2013 and completed the assessment by treating the income offered under the head 'Capital gains' as income from business. Assessee challenged the said order as also the order passed under Section

M/S SITARAM JINDAL FOUNDATION vs. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF

Appeal is allowed

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

SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.06.2018 IN SO FAR IT I.T.A No.744/2018 2 PERTAINS TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO.750/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, AND ETC. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.11.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed so far as

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

loss of Rs.117 cr in trading of share of M/s.JCPL just to set off the capital gain of Rs.101 cr earned

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT LTD

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

capital gain in sale of share of Rs.40,88,08,542/- by taking the actual cost as Rs.24,61,98,742/-? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the assessee has managed the above loss of Rs.117 Cr. in trading of shares of M/s. JCPL just to set

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,E.S.INDIRESH

setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed.” - 8 - 9. Section 139[3] of the Act reads thus: “(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or under the head "Capital

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-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 BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1216/(BANG)/2010 DATED 27-09-2011, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3 THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260A of the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

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

set-aside the Assessment order under Section 263 of the Act and formally dismissed the appeal before CIT(Appeals) for statistical purpose. Assessee challenged the same in ITA No. 254 and 255/Bang/2009. The ITAT restored the appeal on the file of CIT(Appeals). By his order dated June 30, 2010 under Section 250 read with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

loss of Rs.65,49,770/- and subsequently filed the audit report. The assessing officer completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act and by an order dated 31.12.2008 determined the taxable 4 income at Rs.12,10,51,209/- after making an addition of Rs.12,14,68,180/- as long term capital gains

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S VECTRA CONSULTING

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

loss of Rs.4.38 crores. 3 The Assessing Officer has calculated the long term capital gain of Rs.235.85 crores in the hands of the Company on selling of shares of M/s.Jupiter Capital Private Limited to Mr.M.K.Chandrashekhar father of Mr.Rajeev Chandrashekar, the major share holder of the Company. The Company sold its shares of M/s.Jupiter Capital Private Limited to Mr.M.K.Chandrashekhar

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

set off of brought forward losses and charged interest under Section 234C and 234D of the Act further disallowing foreign exchange loss. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT[A] which came to be partly allowed. Hence, the assessee as well as the Revenue both preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has restored the first four issues

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

capital gains under Section 10(38) for the 7 determination of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the following 3 issues arise for consideration in this appeal: i) Reduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts written back credited to profit and loss account for computation of book profit

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