P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

long term capital gains. 4. Subsequently, the learned Assessing Officer had issued the notice dated 09.01.2014 under Section 148 of the Act. On the request made by the petitioner, reasons recorded were provided. The petitioner had filed detailed objections dated 18.08.2014 for the notice and to the reasons recorded further, requesting to issue the copy of the audit query

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital [and of the general reserves] of the corporation [or, as the case may be, the company], no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess. [Explanation.- In this clause.- (a) …........ (b) …........ (c) …........ (d) …........ [(e) “long-term finance” means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for repayment

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

long term capital gain and brought the entire sum of Rs.33.21 Crores received towards non- competition fee and interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Authority with regard to non- competition fee of Rs.30 Crores as revenue receipt, though the same satisfies the ingredients of income as defined under

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

long term capital asset, for which a fair market value was adopted at Rs.225/- per sq.ft. and offered the capital gains for taxation after availing the benefit of indexation. After reopening of the case, the Assessing Officer adopted fair market value at Rs.84/- per sq.ft. and computed the capital gains, and also disallowed 50% of expenses on transfer claimed

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.

long term capital gain’. 3 2. Learned panel counsel appearing for the revenue has made available copy of the Circular bearing number 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 whereunder monetary limit for filing appeals before this Court under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, has been fixed as one Crore and above. 3. In the light of said monetary limit fixed, when

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of 9 the trust. This contention appears

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

gain the goodwill and confidence of the public. As at 31.3.1998 due to valuation of these units it resulted in depreciation amounting to Rs.2,32,42,42,100/- . As the depreciation is on account of valuation of the investments of the bank like other investments, we were eligible for deduction of the same from our taxable income. However, the Assessing