G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A Date of Judgment:05.07.2018 in ITA No.94/2016 G Shubha Devi Vs. The Income Tax Officer 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising the substantial question of law against the order passed by learned ITAT dated 09.10.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11, partly allowing the appeal of Revenue. 2. The case of assessee before the authorities below

SRI G LALANATHA REDDY vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

68 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2022 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 305 OF 2022 IN ITA No. 178/2022: BETWEEN: 1. SRI G LALANATHA REDDY AGED 45 YEARS

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S THE HAMLET,

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

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2023 PASSED IN ITA No.70/BANG/2023, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA No.70/BANG/2023 DATED 16.11.2023 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 ANNEXURE

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A of the Act, raising the substantial questions of Law. 7. The crux of the matter revolves round the Terms of the Conditions of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007 and therefore, a brief extraction of the relevant terms and conditions and its background are necessary to understand as the said Agreement has held the field throughout the aforesaid five Assessment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A of the Act, raising the substantial questions of Law. 7. The crux of the matter revolves round the Terms of the Conditions of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007 and therefore, a brief extraction of the relevant terms and conditions and its background are necessary to understand as the said Agreement has held the field throughout the aforesaid five Assessment

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.667/BANG/2009 DATED 8-1-2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD

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

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

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in C.o.No.103/Bang/2018 (in ITA No.1441/Bang/2018) for the assessment year 2009-10, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AS MAY BE ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER (IN SO FOR AS SAME IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, C BENCH IN ITA No.2051/BANG-2024 DATED 22.05.2025 FOR THE IMPUGNED AY 2017-18 AS ENCLOSED

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the learned Tribunal observed that there is another aspect of this transaction of buy-back at an abnormally high price of `2,85,108/- per share having face value of only `10/- per share and therefore the payment made by the Assessee - Indian Company over and above the fair market price

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 30.11.2009 passed in I.T.A. No.136/PNJ/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, dismissing the appeal filed under Section 271(1)(c). These ITAs coming on for further hearing this day, N. KUMAR J delivered the following

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BUSINESS PROCESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED IN IT[TP]A No.229/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO: 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BUSINESS PROCESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED IN IT[TP]A No.18/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO: 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, praying to: 1. Formulate the substantial questions of law stated above. 2. Allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in IT(TP)A No.145/Bang/2014 dated 17-03-2017 Annexure - D and confirm the order of the DRP confirming the order passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A of the Act. The scheme of the Act contemplates mechanism to set right the error, if any committed by the Assessing Officer. We cannot give our acceptability to the arguments advanced by the revenue contrary to the well established machinery provided under the Act. It is an attempt to deviate from the scheme of the Act, having noticed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S LTI MINDTREE LTD

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 19611 seeking to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 1 Act 2 ITAT - 3 - ITA No. 147 of 2024 dated 23.02.2023 in C.O.No.1/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.1068/BANG/2022). 2. The Assessee-Respondent is said to be a Company in the business of Software Development, Consultancies etc. For Assessment Year

APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:03.08.2018 PASSED IN ITA NOS.422 AND 423/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-2014 AND 2014-2015, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED THEREIN AND ETC. THESE ITAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.12.2022 COMING

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the common order dated 31.10.2014 passed in ITA Nos.1070 and 1071/Bang/2011 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’, - 3 - Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. These appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial questions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the common order dated 31.10.2014 passed in ITA Nos.1070 and 1071/Bang/2011 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’, - 3 - Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. These appeals were admitted to consider the following substantial questions