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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

139(5) of the Act defines the mandatory requirements and the time limit for rectification and the assessee has not filed any revised return for claim of tax credit with reference to income computed under Section 10A. - 28 - 17. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority proceeded to decide the claim on merits also. Insofar as assessment year 2001-02 is concerned

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 139 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘IT Act) for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 9 1992-93, from which these appeals arise. We would like to deal with every appeal independently one after another. ITA No.133/2007 9. First, we would consider ITA 133/07 which is arising from the returns filed by the respondent

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

139(5) of the I.T. Act. Admittedly, the assessee neither retracted the letter dated 29.09.2016 admitting the additional income nor revised the return of income. The assessee also paid tax on the income so admitted. - 9 - ITA No. 166 of 2025 7.3 Further, when the assessment was completed by adding the additional income and subjecting the same

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

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

9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common order dated 21/3/2013, the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeals rejecting the challenge made by the assessee with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, while granting relief against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer by following the earlier order

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

9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common order dated 21/3/2013, the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeals rejecting the challenge made by the assessee with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, while granting relief against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer by following the earlier order

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

9. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee by common order dated 21/3/2013, the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeals rejecting the challenge made by the assessee with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, while granting relief against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer by following the earlier order

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

139[4] of the said act. A return filed is bound to be processed by the Income Tax authorities for which purpose they are meant unless there is an embargo placed. 23. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Centum Industries Private Limited case, reported in [2015] 77 VST 117 [Karn], The Division Bench of this Court interpreting Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

139/-. I find that in the VDIS declaration the value of jewellery declared was only `20,70,68,765/-. Whereas while working out capital gains, the value of jewellery has been taken at `23,13,97,707/-. You are requested to explain the relevant provisions of the law of the board’s notification etc., which entitled you to take different

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

9 exercise having been undertaken by the assessee, Tribunal on appreciation of facts had found that assessee had reinvested the amount and thereby granted the benefit of claiming Long Term Capital Gain as provided under Section 54 of the Act. Hence, he prays for answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. In support

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

68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER