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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

PROF. P.N. SHETTY vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The

property held by him and out of the sale consideration received by him, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in the Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988. A return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 14th July, 2013 by claiming exemption under Section 54F of the said Act. 3. The appellant purchased

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

house in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in 'GOVIND DAS vs. I.T.O', (1976) 1 SCC 906 held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain. capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in resident house, -(1) Where, in the case of an assessee being an individual, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

house in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in ‘GOVIND DAS vs. I.T.O’, (1976) 1 SCC 906 held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1) Subject to the provisions of sub- Section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.177 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. Y. MANJULA REDDY PRESENTLY R/AT. NO.1010 3RD FLOOR, 26TH MAIN 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assessee is eligible to make claim under section 54F when the assessee owned more then two residential houses being Flat No.2034 at High Palace Point and House No.8 in R.T. 3 Nagar which prohibits assessee to make claim under

M/S MYPOL POLYMERS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE

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

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assessee is eligible to make claim under section 54F when the assessee owned more then two residential houses being Flat No.2034 at High Palace Point and House No.8 in R.T. 3 Nagar which prohibits assessee to make claim under

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

1) Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee – (i) on any distribution of assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family; (ii) under a gift or will; (iii) (a) by succession, inheritance or devolution, or (b) on any distribution of assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals or other association

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deduction under Section 54F to the assessee whether the assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

house property. D.- Profits and gains of business or profession. E.- Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- 15 Salaries. 28. Profits and gains of business or profession 1The following income shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head" Profits and gains of business or profession",- (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which

MRS RAHANA SIRAJ vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

house habitable is entitled to benefit under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but not any additions made to the newly acquired building. 2. The assessee is an individual. Assessee was the owner of immovable property bearing No.96, Brigade Road, Civil Station, Bangalore. When the said property was sold, she received a sum of Rs.92,80,350/- towards

SRI ABDUL GAFFAR S/O SRI ABDUL RAHIM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

1), MYSORE, NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE BUILDINGS, VISWESWARANAGAR, STERLING TALKIES ROAD, MYSORE – 570 008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.E.R.INDRAKUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.E.SANMATHI, ADVS) 2 ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29-03-2005 PASSED IN ITA.NO.844/BANG/2004 FOR THE ASSEMENT YEAR 2000-01, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI R SRINIVAS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1) BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SHRI R.SRINIVAS, NO.4/1, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, ADJ. AECS LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 037. …RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 4.3.15 PASSED IN ITA NO.79/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGONG QUESTION

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

1) What is the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase of the 10 shares (or any other item). This can be found out from the treatment it gives to such purchase in its books of account. Whether it is treated as stock-in-trade or investment. Whether shown in opening/closing stock or shown separately as investment

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

1) What is the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase of the 10 shares (or any other item). This can be found out from the treatment it gives to such purchase in its books of account. Whether it is treated as stock-in-trade or investment. Whether shown in opening/closing stock or shown separately as investment