THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

251/- made on account of capital gains. During the previous year relevant to AY 2017-18, a partnership firm namely M/s. Perpetual Investments, was converted into a private company [the assessee]. The said conversion entailed the transfer of the entire assets and liabilities from the partnership firm to the assessee company. Whereas the assessee claimed that the conversion

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

2) If no explanation is offered, levy of penalty may justified. (3) If explanation is offered, but is found to be false, penalty will be exigible. (4) If explanation is offered and it is not found to be false, penalty may not be leviable, - (a) such explanation is bona fide. (b) the assessee had made available to the Assessing Officer

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded by the assessing officer outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru has not been taken on record

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

251(2) of the Act for enhancement of tax liability. After hearing both the parties, the Appellate Commissioner enhanced the tax liability by setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of payments made to sub-contractors through cheque a sum of Rs.2,70,70,745/-. However Appellate Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

251(2) of the Act for enhancement of tax liability. After hearing both 6 the parties, the Appellate Commissioner enhanced the tax liability by setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of payments made to sub-contractors through cheque a sum of Rs.2,70,70,745/-. However Appellate Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Assessing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance made under section 54F of the act even though the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions set out in the said section to avail benefit under the said provision as the assessee has invested in property outside India which cannot be said that assesse has satisfied the conditions set out in the said section?" I.T.A. NO.601

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

2 251 ITR 84 - 10 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 (iii) It is profitable to see what Kanga & Palkhivala’s ‘Law and Practice of Income Tax’, Vol. II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus at pages 3316 – 17 states: “…A question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

2. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 and claimed deduction of a sum of Rs.9,18,82,49,133/- under Section 36 (1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 3 for short). The deduction claimed comprised of a sum of Rs.8,10,96,43,882/- being

M/S SUBEX LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

disallowance of deduction of Rs.9,53,10,234/- being the sale of hardware component from export turnover under Section 10A of the Act. This appeal has been admitted to consider the following question of law: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honorable ITAT was right in law in excluding

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS

Appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance of deduction of Rs.9,53,10,234/- being the sale of hardware component from export turnover under Section 10A of the Act. This appeal has been admitted to consider the following question of law: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honorable ITAT was right in law in excluding

APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

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

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:03.08.2018 PASSED IN ITA NOS.422 AND 423/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-2014 AND 2014-2015, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED THEREIN AND ETC. THESE ITAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.12.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof, shall for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 24. In this connection, at this stage, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P.Madhusudan