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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

70. Similarly, all cases and proceedings pending at the commencement of the Rent Act, 1999 were saved and allowed to be continued in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Insofar as the cases of remaining category and the proceedings pending in respect of the premises to which the rent Act of 1999 does not apply shall, as from

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

Section 68 of the Act for Rs.15,70,650/- and treated sale proceeds of bio- compost of Rs.9,73,02,533/- as unaccounted

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68. Reverting to the facts of the present case, what the learned Tribunal has done is merely to ask the Assessing Authority to hold an enquiry as to whether the abnormally high price paid for buy-back of shares from almost a single shareholder only, viz., the Mauritius Company, a Holding Company which held 99.99% of the share holding

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

68 be introduced. Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) does not occur in depiction to treat anything as a fringe benefit as perquisite which may otherwise not come within its purview. In fact, none of the provisions under Section 17(2) or under the impugned rules deviate from the basis concept of perquisites and fringe benefits as part

SHRI VENKATESHVARA LOGISTICS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy Writ Petition No.202433/2019 (T-Res) Between: Shri Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors C.O. Dolor No.5, Vaigal Nagar Vandiyar Bit.2, Ring Road Madurai-625020 Ho: City Prof. Wali Galli Near Satyam Dharam Kanta Khora Kalan, Delhi 36 Branch Office At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony, Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi Represented By Its Authorized Representative Shri Rachya S/O Sri Shivakumar Murgodamath, Age: 30 Years Residing At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi ... Petitioner (By Sri Rasalkar Narayan Gangadhar Rao, Advocate)

70 of the CGST Act addressed to the driver of the lorry and 6 the authorized representative of the petitioner. Later, on 12.03.2019, the statement of the driver and the authorized representative was recorded. 3. The petitioner, in terms of its letter dated 13.04.2019 requested the Commissioner of Central Tax and by letter dated 15.04.2019 requested the Additional Commissioner

SRI B N MARIYAPPA vs. THE BBMP COMMISSIONER

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

70 YEARS NO 691, 7TH CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDARA BENGALURU - 560 073. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISHKUMAR R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) 3 AND 1. THE BBMP COMMISSIONER 5TH FLOOR, LEGAL CELL N R SQUARE CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) DASRAHALLI ZONE, BBMP BAGALGUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 073. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SINCHANA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the case of 59 Vijender v. State of Delhi reported in (1997) 6 SCC 171 held at paragraph-17 as under: 17. Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording

M/S UNITED TELECOM LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the case of 59 Vijender v. State of Delhi reported in (1997) 6 SCC 171 held at paragraph-17 as under: 17. Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

68. Submission is that a fiction created for the purpose of section 5[3][a] of the Act cannot be accepted and applied for the charge created under section 6-B of the Act. 69. This argument is an acceptable argument as we find that section 6-B of the Act is governed by the provisos appended

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S PRASADHINI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa Regular Second Appeal No.390/2012 (Res)

68 of suit or appeal. Thus, the said section deals with the admissibility of ancient documents, dispensing with proof as would be required, in the usual course of events in a usual manner. 57. In the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. –vs- Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another reported in (1999)5 SCC 590 the Hon’ble Supreme while

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68,002/- resulting out of excess application over income without appreciating that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

68,032/-. In the return of income assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act, contending interalia that said amount had been 10 reinvested by her for purchase of another residential property namely, a flat at Mumbai itself for a total consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/- as per Memorandum of Understanding entered on 08.09.2003. It is also

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

70 (d) The impugned provision overrides the charging Section namely Section 4(1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought