THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains and the reassessment order. It is nothing but change of opinion and same cannot be done in the reassessment

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain and validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings was also rightly treated as a circumstance showing the bonafides of the assessee

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of Section 144BA.” 7. Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, however, has submitted that there being no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 153D

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains” (whether relating to short-term Date of Judgment 31-07-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2012 Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. vs. M/s. GMR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 7/16 capital assets or any other capital assets).” In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the second objection of the AO in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the initiation of reassessment has been merely on the basis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the initiation of reassessment has been merely on the basis

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

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

gain and the other deduction for short term capital loss while filing their returns under Section 139 of the Act. All was well up to September, 2015. The Department conducted search on all the petitioners herein under Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 of the Act reads as follows: “132. Search and seizure.—(1) [Where the [Principal Director General

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains without considering the provisions of section 45(2) and the assessee has thus understated the income and claimed excessive indexation. Thus, it was stated that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the year 2004-05. The assessment was reopened for the purpose of assessing the income from

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains arising from the transfer of an asset pursuant to a Joint Development Agreement (for short, “JDA”) dated 12.05.2004. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 3.1 The Assessing Officer was of the view that under the JDA there was a transfer of land, which constituted a “transfer” within the meaning of Section

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

reassessment was bad. However, the said contention came to be negatived by the Tribunal and insofar as issue relating to determination of the value of immovable property, matter came to be remanded back to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for adjudication. 6. As could be seen from the order of Tribunal, reason for issuance of notice for reopening

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gain” and is not a gain from the banking business. - 30 - 15. This would clearly establish that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Indeed the assessing officer objected to the audit objection in giving a reply to the same. On the other hand, the assessing officer was of the firm opinion that the assessment

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gain is computable on the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. Without prejudice whether the authorities were justified in assessing the firm after it had ceased to exist on the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the ground raised by the appellant with respect to the value adopted

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital gains tax liability to be fixed in the hands of successor company for the previous year in which the requirements or conditions of Clause (b) of Proviso to Clause(xiii) of Section 47 are not complied with vide Section 47A(3) of the Act, which in our view, the petitioner with the aforesaid interpretation, were not so complied with

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains instead of business income even when assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment or the search assessment