THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

short) in ITA No.989/Bang/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial question of law; - 3 - “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the guidance value is the sale consideration for computing capital gain

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

term capital gain of Rs.13,16,08,600/- and short term capital gain of Rs.77,29,09,600/- for Assessment

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

short). The assessee during the pendency of the appeal learnt that the tribunal vide its order dated 11.12.2008 decided first four grounds of appeal raised by the assessee with regard to validity of the order of assessment under Section 147 in favour of the revenue. In respect of the issue pertaining to set off of brought forward of business loss

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains computed by assessing authority by adopting rate of acquisition at Rs.200 is erroneous and further holding 3 that period of holding shares should be from the date of conversion into shares to the date of sale of shares and it is short term

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

short-term capital asset; (ii) “net consideration”, in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.” 11. Section 54F is beneficial legislation. Deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

short] dated 14.05.2015 passed in ITA No.1281/Bang/2010 relating to the assessment year 1997-98. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

short) is whether merely because the company which had offered the stock option rights to an employee of a company, in which it was holding 40% shares can be held to be employer of the company and gains out of the allotment of share can be termed as perquisites or same has to treated as capital

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

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

short term capital gains on Rs.26,28,000/- (Rs.81,00,000 – Rs.54,72,000). 19. In reply Smt. Vani

FABSUN ENGINEERING vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

short) against long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer rejected the benefit under Section 54G on the ground

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

term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

short, “CIT(A)”). By order dated 13.02.2015, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal insofar as it related to the levy of capital gains. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu, reported in [2011] 14 taxmann.com 120 (Kar.), held that

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA BABU

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains tax relevant to A.Y. 2008-09 even though under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Transferors Shareholders the Assessees dated 16.06.2007 with purchasers and the substantial part of consideration of Rs.40,00,00,000/- [Rupees Forty Crores] was also paid by the purchasers to the Assessees/Transferors in the Financial Year relevant to A.Y.2008-09, even though the shares also

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in denying the exemption under section 54F and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI SRINIVASAN CHANDIRA KUMAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

term capital gains. According to the assessee the aforesaid sum was an expenditure incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer as contemplated under Section 48(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.11.2011 disallowed an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from out of the deduction of Rs.1 Crore claimed under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

short) in ITA No.705/Bang/2013 relating to the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The appeal has been admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was not carrying the activity of adventure

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

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

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains from business or profession? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that provisions of Section 50C are applicable to the instant case of sale of subject land by the appellant? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MR. DEBARSHI SENGUPTA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

short, ‘CIT(A)’) by producing additional evidence to establish the date of purchase of the capital asset in question. The CIT(A) by order dated 27.06.2023 rejected the claim. The Tribunal at the instance of the assessee under impugned order rejected the appeal by holding that the assessee purchased the capital asset under deed of apartment dated