THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gains or short term capital loss. Therefore, the tax stood cleared in the year 2016 through revised returns. This fact is not in dispute. After the petitioners filed their revised returns complaints come to be registered against all these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of two residential houses purchased and also holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54(2) of the Act, to the extent of unutilized deposit in the capital gain account as claimed by them. 2. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year

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

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

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

short term capital asset and cannot be extended for computation of indexation of cost of acquisition which only arises in case of long term capital gain? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that while computing the capital gain arising on transfer of Capital Assets which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

short) in ITA No.14/W6(3) CIT(A) III/2002-03 for the assessment year 1999-2000. 3 2. The respondent-assessee filed return of income on 28-06-1999 for the assessment year 1999-2000 declaring the income of Rs.4,66,200/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised returns on 11-11-1999 declaring the income of Rs.13,83,616/-. The income declared

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

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

house property”, other than the new asset. - 11 - ITA No. 546/2018 Explanation.- For the purpose of this section,- (i) “long-term capital asset” means a capital asset which is not a short-term capital asset; (ii) “net consideration”, in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

short term capital gain of Rs.11,97,996/- from sale of Adyar Property treating the same as capital asset and claimed exemption u/s 54B of the I.T.Act. The assessee also in his letter dated 03.05.2010 pleaded that he is eligible for exemption u/s 54B of the I.T.Act as he has invested the capital gain from sale of land used

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal is justified in law in confirming the denial of exemption claimed by the appellant under

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

term capital gain arising out of the sale of the above property of Rs.15,44,009/- after claiming deduction towards incidental charges for transfer of property, the cost of acquisition and the deduction admissible under Section 54 of the Act in respect of two properties purchased in Bangalore viz., Koramangala and Domlur, II Stage, Bangalore, respectively

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

M/S KEMFIN SERVICES PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

HOUSE, 11, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 022. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE – 11 (5) BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.03.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1040/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING THAT THIS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

house. In respect of the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee filed return of income on 14.2.2000 declaring total income of Rs.4,90,000/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) came to be concluded determining the total income at Rs.5,20,000/-. A search came to be conducted in the premises

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

short ‘the Act’) would be available to the assessee had observed at paragraph 5.5 and 5.6 as under: “5.5. Considering the fact that the assessee is already a owner of more than one residential house, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2011 was issued to the assessee proposing to disallow the exemption claimed U/s.54F

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

property made outside India and created a demand of Rs.6,53,96,362/- 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 16.06.2012 inter alia held that decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal is 4 applicable only to non residents and is not applicable to the facts

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in denying the exemption under section 54F and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case