COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.M.R.JANAKIRAM (HUF)

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

price of the said land and buy the scheduled property situated in 6.3 acres, immediately. 19. Prayer was sought for a direction to the Official Liquidator to sell the said 6.3 acres of schedule property wherein the Institution of the KIAMS is situated by accepting the amount stated therein. 20. Company Court vide order dated 30.09.2008 took note

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

transfer of their residential property being house no.267, sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house. 14 11. The facts of the present case are similar, if not on a stronger footing than that in the case of Sanjeev Lal (supra). In the said case, while entering into an agreement to sell

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

housing project as per the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan – Zoning of Land Use and Regulations approved by Government vide G.O. No.HUD 139 MNJ 94 DATED 5-1-1995. II. The First Party has offered to the Second Party or his nominees the Joint development rights of the above Survey Numbers which offer the Second Party has accepted in good faith

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

property in the goods for a specific price or on significant risks and rewards of ownership has been transferred to the buyer and the seller retains no effective control of the goods transferred to a degree usually associated with ownership; (ii) no significant uncertainty exists regarding amount of consideration that has been derived from the sale of the goods

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income Tax return on 16.12.2004 declaring an income of Rs.4,82,330/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,62,470/-. Such return was first processed under section 143(1) of the Act and accepted on 2.3.2005. Thereafter, notice under Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

price of the raw-material. If the MODVAT credit is availed by the assessee at the time of sale of finished products to that extent, he would be entitled to deduction. If MODVAT credit still remain unavailed, it is to be added to the closing balance and that has to be taken into consideration in deciding the profit earned

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

price of the raw-material. If the MODVAT credit is availed by the assessee at the time of sale of finished products to that extent, he would be entitled to deduction. If MODVAT credit still remain unavailed, it is to be added to the closing balance and that has to be taken into consideration in deciding the profit earned

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price and the said officer did not suggest TP adjustment. Assessing Authority made non TP addition pertaining to surplus from shareholders account, treating the same as income from other business and losses from pension fund not allowed to be carried forward. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

transferred to M/s. Brigade Enterprises under registered sale deeds; consideration for purchase of these properties was invested to an extent of 50% by the assessee and the balance 50% was invested by M/s. Canara Housing Development Corporation. The Assessing Officer has accepted the payments made for purchase of lands from agriculturists and the sale of lands to M/s. Brigade Enterprises

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TEXTRON INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Property Rights (IPRs). This company is not only into software products as explained in the Annual Report of this company but also is engaged in the embedded product development based on current and emerging technologies such as Multi-media, Wimax, Imaging, Imaging Process etc. The company actively engaged in developing house expertise in current and emerging markets through house development

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Properties Pvt.Ltd. .212 ITR 303 [Cal] 313-316 49 Rajkot District Gopalak Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd 204 ITR 590 (Guj) 317-320 50 CIT Vs. A Tosh & Sons Pvt. LTd 166 ITR 867 (Cal) 321-329 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Properties Pvt.Ltd. .212 ITR 303 [Cal] 313-316 49 Rajkot District Gopalak Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd 204 ITR 590 (Guj) 317-320 50 CIT Vs. A Tosh & Sons Pvt. LTd 166 ITR 867 (Cal) 321-329 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery