P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciable assets in the revenue field, the gains arising as a result of sale thereof will have to be necessarily treated in revenue field either under Section 28 or Section 56 and not as capital

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain that has to be brought to tax which in his opinion has escaped assessment. 14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain that has to be brought to tax which in his opinion has escaped assessment. 14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains, and also disallowed 50% of expenses on transfer claimed by the assessee. Besides this, certain other disallowances were also made by the Assessing Officer. Challenging the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted certain relief, but confirmed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act; the assessment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation and allow the same from the income. However, the First Appellate Authority rejected the prayer insofar as Rs.34,68,126/- and declared as income from other sources. No relief has been granted insofar as the royalty is concerned. The First Appellate Authority was of the view that the assessee has shown the capital gain

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation allowance, the cost of capital assets imported before the date of devaluation should be written off to the extent of the full amount of the additional rupee liability incurred on account of devaluation and not what is actually paid from year to year. The proposed legal provision in the matter is intended to be framed on this basis

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gains under Section 80P of the Act. Pursuant to which, the assessing officer has submitted a reply as under;- - 9 - “REPLY TO AUDIT ENQUIRY NO.2 DATED 25.07.2006 Name of the assessee : Kannika parameshwaari Co-op. Bank Ltd., Davanagere, Asst. year/s : 2004-05 The assessee is a Regional Rural Bank notified u/s 3 of the Regional Rural Banking Service

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital asset is treated as application of income? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious and Charitable Trust held as under: Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.317/2014 Director of Income

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

capital 6 expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S ALTIMETRIK INDIA PVT. LTD

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Has Been Fixed As One Crore & Above.

capital gains as well as disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and the depreciation allowance in total would be less

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital assets as well as depreciation are both claimed as application of income in determining surplus/deficit during the year? 6. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the normal provisions of section 28 to 44 of the Act are applicable and depreciation is allowable to charitable trust, when in cases

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital assets when it amounts to double deduction as the income of the assessee is already exempt and amended provisions of the Act also denies such claim for depreciation by Trust?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation

M/S. HORTICONTRACTS vs. M/S. AGRIHORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.P.SANDESH

capital assets when it amounts to double deduction as the income of the assessee is already exempt and amended provisions of the Act also denies such claim for depreciation by Trust?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation