M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

short term Capital gains added by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 15. Re-Disallowance of premium on Insurance Policy

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

short ‘Act’) as assessee had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under said section. 2. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this second appeal by the revenue can be crystlised as under: For the assessment year 2003-04 a return of income came to be filed by the assessee on 17.07.2003 4 declaring her total income

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

short) relating to the assessment year 2013-14 raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the Tribunal was correct in law in remanding the matter to CIT (A) to decide eligibility of exemption under Section 54 in respect of repayment of housing loan of Rs.60 lakhs

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

short term capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing

SRI KAMALL KAILASH CHANDRA SODHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

short term capital gains on income from sale and purchase of shares from UTI Securities Ltd was disallowed. The appeal

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

short term capital 6 gains'. The claims for deduction under Section 54F was disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner

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

capital gains for sale of property at Rs.10,13,45,711/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,85,142/-. The assessee ITA.No.456/2017 - 3 - acquired the property under the Will dated 24.08.1994 executed by her husband who died on 22.02.2006. Subsequently, the assessee obtained probate from the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under the order dated 30.10.2006. The husband

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

short). The assessee during the pendency of the appeal learnt that the tribunal vide its order dated 11.12.2008 decided first four grounds of appeal raised by the assessee with regard to validity of the order of assessment under Section 147 in favour of the revenue. In respect of the issue pertaining to set off of brought forward of business loss

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54B of the I.T.Act. 5.9.2. In the return of income filed, the assessee computed the short term capital gain

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Term Capital Gain of Rs.26,88,34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

disallowance of claim made under section 54F of the Act by holding that out of five properties held by assessee, three properties cannot be considered as residential properties and as for remaining two properties are concerned, remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh decision ignoring that assessee held more than one house other than the new asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

short facts of the case appears to be that the assessee filed returns for the Assessment Year 2002-03 10 on 31.10.2002 declaring the total income at Rs.14,67,913/-. Even for the subsequent Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, respective incomes were declared, but the common basis in the returns filed by the assessee was that

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

short facts of the case appears to be that the assessee filed returns for the Assessment Year 2002-03 10 on 31.10.2002 declaring the total income at Rs.14,67,913/-. Even for the subsequent Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, respective incomes were declared, but the common basis in the returns filed by the assessee was that

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.

short term capital gains as well as disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and the depreciation allowance in total

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

short ‘Act’) itself does not survive, can tax be levied by the Assessing Officer for a totally different reason or issue, which was not the subject matter of reopening the assessment. In other words, if reasons for reopening are (a) and (b) and during fresh assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, income is found to have escaped from

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated