P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,83,08,077/- which includes the income from the capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50,00,000/- after claiming the applicable exemptions against the receipt of consideration of Rs.4

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,84,03,401/- which includes the income from the capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50,00,000/- after claiming the applicable exemptions against the receipt of consideration of Rs.4

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

short], raising the purported substantial questions of law arising from the Order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B”, dated 27.07.2016 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 2. The learned Counsel for the Assessee has suggested the following three substantial questions of law in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Appellant. Date of Judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act and by an order dated 31.12.2008 determined the taxable 4 income at Rs.12,10,51,209/- after making an addition of Rs.12,14,68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short

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

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

short, “CIT(A)”). By order dated 13.02.2015, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal insofar as it related to the levy of capital gains. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu, reported in [2011] 14 taxmann.com 120 (Kar.), held that, under

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

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gains under Section 80P of the Act. Pursuant to which, the assessing officer has submitted a reply as under;- - 9 - “REPLY TO AUDIT ENQUIRY NO.2 DATED 25.07.2006 Name of the assessee : Kannika parameshwaari Co-op. Bank Ltd., Davanagere, Asst. year/s : 2004-05 The assessee is a Regional Rural Bank notified u/s 3 of the Regional Rural Banking Service

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

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. 14.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 for the years

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KWALITY BISCUITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.675/Bang/2020 for the assessment year 2006-07, raising the following substantial questions of law: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41199-DB ITA No. 155 of 2023 “1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in giving relief to the assessee on the ground of reopening of assessment

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

short) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in law, the authorities below were justified in approving the action of the assessing officer who chose to rectify the alleged mistake, under Section 154 of an issue which is debatable in nature? (ii) Whether

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

short). The assessee i.e., M/s. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., has its registered office at the ver same premises where the search was conducted. During the search operation, certain documents and books of accounts ybelonging to the assessee were seized from the premises searched. Documents of the assessee seized during the search operation were transferred by the Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

short). The assessee i.e., M/s. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., has its registered office at the ver same premises where the search was conducted. During the search operation, certain documents and books of accounts ybelonging to the assessee were seized from the premises searched. Documents of the assessee seized during the search operation were transferred by the Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

short). The assessee i.e., M/s. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., has its registered office at the ver same premises where the search was conducted. During the search operation, certain documents and books of accounts ybelonging to the assessee were seized from the premises searched. Documents of the assessee seized during the search operation were transferred by the Assessing Officer