THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

d) one enterprise guarantees not less than ten per cent of the total borrowings of the other enterprise; or 45 (e) more than half of the board of directors or members of the governing board, or one or more executive directors or executive members of the governing board of one enterprise, are appointed by the other enterprise; or (f) more

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed in computing the assessee’s total income is deemed to represent the concealed income. It is for the assessee to furnish material to establish that the assessee has not concealed income or has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of any such evidence, the presumption of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

D. The prayer sought for in this appeal is to set aside the said order by allowing the appeal and confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and thereby confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Bengaluru and with a further prayer seeking to set-aside the order passed by the Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

D. The prayer sought for in this appeal is to set aside the said order by allowing the appeal and confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and thereby confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Bengaluru and with a further prayer seeking to set-aside the order passed by the Income

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – 2(3) C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore …Appellants (By Sri K.V. Aravind & Sri B. Pramod, Advocates) AND: M/s. MWP Ltd., (since amalgamated with United Breweries Holdings Ltd., 2 UP Anchorage, 5th Floor 100/1, Richmond Road Bangalore …Respondent (By Sri D.L.N

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

D G M E N T 1.This appeal is filed by the appellants/revenue seeking to set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short “ITAT”) in ITA No.653 (Bang) 2015, dated 29.07.2016; to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru (for short “DCIT

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

D(1) of the 5 Act so as to proceed with it. After considering the report of the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 passed an order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act on 3rd April 2014 holding that the application of the petitioner is not invalid. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed writ petition No.44007

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SANDUR MANGANESE and IRON ORES LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

d : The Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., Laxmipur, Sandur – 583 119. - Respondent (By Sri S. Parthasarathi, P. Dinesh and K. Mallanarao, Advocates This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated 23.12.2005 passed in ITA No.44/Bang/2000 and etc. This appeal coming for final hearing on this day, N.Kumar J, delivered

SRI B GAJENDRA KUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

D. VASUDEVA ACHARYA, PROP: M/S. SRI DURGA CREDITS & INVESTMENTS, “VASUDEVA” MAIN ROAD, HALEYANGADY – 574 146. ... APPELLANT. (common in all Appeals) (BY SRI S. PARTHASARATHI, SRI P.DINESH MALLAHARAOK & MRS. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVS.) AND: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVAR, M.G.ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 001. ...RESPONDENT. (common in all Appeals) (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - 2 - THESE APPEALS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.REMA CONSTRUCTIONS,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowance of the said items by the Assessing Officer was not proper. The Assessing Officer should have initiated penalty proceedings under Section – 271(1)(c) for deliberately 3 furnishing inaccurate particulars and thus directed the Assessing Authority to initiate penalty proceedings. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

D G M E N T The appellant-revenue has preferred the present appeal raising following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the explanation offered by the assessee for not offering the capital gain in the original return on income was bonafide explain, when

M/S GRANITE MART LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

D, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA HOSKOTE, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), R.P. BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD OPP. TO RBI, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

D Unit, Nelamangala Unit- formulation. 3. The assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2001 declaring a total loss of Rs.3,68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative

M/S METRIX PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT. LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

271 and the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of M/s Granite Mart P Ltd.,?.” 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business, manufacture and exports of automotive components. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner