SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains should be included in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit. 7. The learned Counsel further places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘C.I.T. Vs. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED’ reported in 2008 [305] ITR 409 and the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

losses which may be subsequently incurred by the firm, even in the very accounting year in which the capital account is credited. Having regard to the nature and quality of the consideration which the partner may be said to acquire on introducing his personal asset into the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital it cannot be said that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

loss of the assessee was set-off against the capital gains earned by the assessee during the said Date of Judgment

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

loss of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276-C of the Act. The basic reason why the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT [(2007) 6 SCC 329] was overruled by this

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains’ is assessable to levy of tax under the Act. [a] ‘S.C. CAMBATTA & CO., [P] LTD., v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX’ [(1961) 41 ITR 500 [SC]] [b] ‘GUZDAR KAJORA COAL MINES LTD., v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX’ [(1972) 85 ITR 0599] 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Assessee – Respondent, would contend that there is a clear distinction

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Capital gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1481/BNG/2003, DATED 22-09-2006 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 12(2), BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.] - 9 - [d] Where a person is found to have any asset [including financial interest in any entity] located outside India. Explanation 3 – For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.] - 9 - [d] Where a person is found to have any asset [including financial interest in any entity] located outside India. Explanation 3 – For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

loss after set off of short term capital gain of Rs.51,06,737/-. According to Assessing Officer 7 the set

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

set aside and the assessee should be given the benefit of Section 10(38) of the Act. 16 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revenue supporting the impugned order contends that, the law laid down by the Apex Court in McDowell is not diluted in the subsequent judgment in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan. In fact

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KUMERGODE INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeal is Dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

gain of Rs.1,23,70,071/- from sale of shares and set off the same as against long term capital loss

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.158/BANG/2011 DATED 8.2.2013, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. 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

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

loss account in respect of the value of shares for each assessment year from the date of purchase of shares namely, from 1992-93. He would also contend that the amount paid towards legal charges was liable to be deducted from the sale value when computing capital gains tax when the actual payment accrued and was paid in the earlier

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

loss account in respect of the value of shares for each assessment year from the date of purchase of shares namely, from 1992-93. He would also contend that the amount paid towards legal charges was liable to be deducted from the sale value when computing capital gains tax when the actual payment accrued and was paid in the earlier

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 19.06.2015 THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.689/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. - 2 - THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained at 51%. The Supreme Court further