THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed as the questions of law do not survive for

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

206 of 2019 HTM Securities ignoring the fact that HTM Securities are treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee-bank and depreciation has been claimed in all the assessment years? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances made under section

SRI MUKESH GUPTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

Section 206 of the IT Act, the amount received by the assessee partakes the character of the professional charges and thus, it is not open to the revenue to take different contention in the assessment proceedings as both the provisions are highly interlinked. 9. He further contended that the payment received by the assessee was as professional charges and that

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 80C of the Act and to adopt the guideline value as per Section 50C of the Act after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

disallowed deduction under Section 54F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) on the ground that the assessee purchased the property vide sale deeds dated 10.09.2008 and 20.11.2008, however, the construction of the flats have not been completed when the purchase was made under the said sale deeds. Further, it observed that the construction was completed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance which was allowed by CIT(A). 03. Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, dt.05.04.2013, for A.Y.2009-10 had held as under: (para 5.3.3. & para 5.4 of ITAT order already quoted above as an extract in the Order of the CIT (Appeals) hence not quoted again) Date

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance which was allowed by CIT(A). 03. Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, dt.05.04.2013, for A.Y.2009-10 had held as under: (para 5.3.3. & para 5.4 of ITAT order already quoted above as an extract in the Order of the CIT (Appeals) hence not quoted again) Date

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENTS

Appeals stand dismissed;

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

section 37(1) of the Act? 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - 4 - ITA No. 324/2019 C/W ITA No. 326/2019 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the expenses claimed as business expenses, when the assessee had ceased to have active business activities in the earlier years