M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

set off the accumulated depreciation amount of the earlier years against the available total income offered by the assessee and found that net result was there was no taxable income and therefore did not allow the benefit claimed by the assessee under section 80HHC of the Act as per his order at Annexure-B. 6. In the appeal

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the amount of provision made in the books of accounts. 7. As regards the appellant’s contention that a percentage of the total income should be deducted while computing before setting off the loss brought forward, the Tribunal rejected it in view of a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench

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

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

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-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6 2 4, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-Section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.855/BNG/2008, dated 06-02-2009, in the interest of justice and equity. This Appeal is coming on for hearing and reserved for orders on 08/09/2015, this day B.MANOHAR J,. pronounced the following: JUDGMENT The assessee preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Loss Account Income as per Income and Expenditure Account 57,39,68,569 78,20,892 58,17,89,461 Less: 15% set apart for application to charitable or religious purpose Balance 85% to be applied 87,268,419 494,521,042 Less: Application of Income Expenses (excluding business activity and Depreciation) Expenditure as per Income and Expenditure Account-Donation

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. THE WORKMEN OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

Appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,V.SURI APPA RAO

68 meaning of the word ‘a’ in the context in which it is used in the said Section. 48. The words “a” or “an” and “the” are called Articles. They come before nouns. There are two Articles – a (or an) and the. “a” or “an” is called the Indefinite Article, because it usually leaves indefinite the person or thing spoken

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

loss involved and the expenditure amount of Rs.1,98,97,036/- claimed by the Assessee, towards the expenses for licence fee/logo was established to be revenue expenditure/business expenditure reflected in the “schedule of miscellaneous expenses”. AO was also of the firm opinion, the Agreement dated 19.12.2012 executed by the Assessee- Company with TTK & Company shows that by virtue

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 of the Act appears to have been done without affording a specific opportunity Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 22/86 of hearing to the assessee and that appears to be the reason for setting aside of that Order of the Tribunal

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/-, they were sold by the assessee during the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year for a total consideration of Rs.75,35,23,139/-. After adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,59,26,410/-, the assessee had declared long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. The assessee is said to have sold the diamonds

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/-, they were sold by the assessee during the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year for a total consideration of Rs.75,35,23,139/-. After adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,59,26,410/-, the assessee had declared long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. The assessee is said to have sold the diamonds

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/-, they were sold by the assessee during the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year for a total consideration of Rs.75,35,23,139/-. After adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,59,26,410/-, the assessee had declared long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. The assessee is said to have sold the diamonds

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/-, they were sold by the assessee during the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year for a total consideration of Rs.75,35,23,139/-. After adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,59,26,410/-, the assessee had declared long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. The assessee is said to have sold the diamonds

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/-, they were sold by the assessee during the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year for a total consideration of Rs.75,35,23,139/-. After adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,59,26,410/-, the assessee had declared long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. The assessee is said to have sold the diamonds