THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

short ‘Act’) as assessee had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under said section. 2. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this second appeal by the revenue can be crystlised as under: For the assessment year 2003-04 a return of income came to be filed by the assessee on 17.07.2003 4 declaring her total income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration and when the provisions of section 48 specify the “full value of consideration” is received or accrued?” 3. The respondent – assessee is an individual deriving managerial remuneration from M/s PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Term Capital Gain of Rs.26,88,34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

short) in terms of Section 115-O of the Act on the pay-out by it for buy-back of its own shares from its foreign Holding Company, M/s. FIS Holding Muritian Ltd. incorporated in Mauritius. 7. The Appellant Assessee Company bought back its own shares from its Holding Company at Mauritius to the extent of 2,933 Shares having

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 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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

short ‘the Act’]. However, the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2000 in the office of the ITO, Raichur, disclosing the total income of `20,22,380/-. The tax payable was worked out by the assessee at `4,07,604/-. In this return, the assessee disclosed the income from salary and other sources. This return was treated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

68 of 2010: BETWEEN: M/S GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES (SINCE DISSOLVED) REP. ITS ERSTWHILE PARTNER SRI. A.S.CHINNASWAMY RAJU NO.160, (OLD NO. 104) R.V. LAYOUT, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020 … APPELLANT [BY SRI A SHANKAR & SRI M LAVA, ADVS.] AND: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 … RESPONDENT [BY SRI K V ARAVIND

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

short). The tribunal by an order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 5 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that on 23.12.2005 the assessee had entered into an unregistered agreement i.e., an agreement to sale with M/s Namaste Exports Ltd. for purchase of land measuring

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

68,52,920/-, under the head income from salary, house property, capital gains and income 4 from other sources and paid tax of Rs.49,57,706/-. The assessing officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to file the return of income disclosing true particulars of income chargeable to tax. The assessee vide communication

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

68,126/- which consists of interest income of Rs.66,482/- and balances written back amounting to Rs.34,01,644/-. In Schedule-13 which was titled as “Notes to the accounts”, it was stated that depreciation was not provided during the year on the assets since the Unit is dormant and there is no production during the said year. Notices were

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