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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

3,17,400/- and the said shares were sold through another broker for `2,94,300/- on 29/03/1962 and thus the Assessee incurred a loss of `23,100/- for the said year, the learned Tribunal held that though the said loss in sale and purchase of the shares could not be termed as ‘speculative transactions’ and the lower Authorities were

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

254 ELT 6 (SC) Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department vs. Shukla & Brother 11 CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF REVENUE: 7. Per contra, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Panel counsel appearing for respondents would submit that petitioner without exhausting the alternate remedy of appeal namely, approaching the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the same being

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3] read with Section 254 of the Act holding that the consideration received by the assessee towards the sale of technical know-how was capital in nature as goodwill liable to be taxed under Section 45 of the Act as capital receipt at the value given by the purchaser in its financials. The Assessing Authority further held that non-competition

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32; and (c) which was or has been used for the purposes of business, is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the moneys payable in respect of such building, machinery, plant or furniture, as the case may be, together with 16 the amount of scrap value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

depreciation of Rs.84,39,457/- in all a sum of Rs.8,63,61,817/- towards Helicopters. On 31.03.2013, the assessment order held that there was a report that the assessee was involved in political activity. The Helicopter was used for political purposes as per media report. The claim was considered by the Assessing Officer under Section

M/S SRI VARUN SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in appreciating a ground taken by the respondent revenue that the Appellant was not a co-operative society, the ground which was neither contended by the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus has passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in appreciating a ground taken by the respondent revenue that the Appellant was not a co-operative society, the ground which was neither contended by the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus has passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in appreciating a ground taken by the respondent revenue that the Appellant was not a co-operative society, the ground which was neither contended by the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus has passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3)

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in appreciating a ground taken by the respondent revenue that the Appellant was not a co-operative society, the ground which was neither contended by the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus has passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in appreciating a ground taken by the respondent revenue that the Appellant was not a co-operative society, the ground which was neither contended by the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus has passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

depreciation not being claimed by the appellant on the leased equipments. Per contra, the appellant has submitted that it is an integrated transaction and not two independent transactions to fasten the tax liability and as the integrated transaction is in 13 the course of import falls under the purview of Section 5(2) of the CST Act and has given

SMT M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

3 AND: M/S. KIDS KEMP NO.18, RAMANNSHREE ARCADE M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.05.2018 PASSED IN M.P.NO.107/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO.1036/BANG/2016), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL

M/S BIESEE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant in ITA No.851/2017 has filed a memo which reads as under: 5 "It is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble High Court to permit the Appellant to withdraw the Appeal in ITA No.851/2017 as the Appeal in ITA No.321/2018 is allowed by way of remand

M/S. BIESSE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant in ITA No.851/2017 has filed a memo which reads as under: 5 "It is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble High Court to permit the Appellant to withdraw the Appeal in ITA No.851/2017 as the Appeal in ITA No.321/2018 is allowed by way of remand

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

3 assessment order under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 19611. Assessee challenged it before CIT2(Appeals). In the meanwhile, on March 31, 2008, CIT, Bengaluru-1 vide order F. No.263/CIT-I/2007-08 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

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

3 assessment order under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 19611. Assessee challenged it before CIT2(Appeals). In the meanwhile, on March 31, 2008, CIT, Bengaluru-1 vide order F. No.263/CIT-I/2007-08 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

M/S KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORP LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeal is dismissed as having become

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

3. The appeal was admitted on 08-11-2010 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not rectifying its order under Section 254(2) on the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the rectification of its own order amounts to review