PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2(47) of the Act, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under section 54 of the Act, in respect of the long-term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being house no.267, sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

transferred to the appellant and till then the rights over the goods wrests with the end customer only. In-fact in the MLA as pointed out by the FAA and AA, the description of leased equipments are not forthcoming and the appellant is not aware of the goods to be leased till the purchase order is placed

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

47 of the Act refers to transfer by way of conversion of bonds referred to in Clause (a) of sub-Section 115AC of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid provision is not applicable to the case in hand. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer was set aside and the appeal preferred

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

transfer more so when the payments are through banking channels, and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstance of the case. We have heard Sri A.Shanker, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri E.I.Sanmathi learned counsel for the respondent-department, as 7 well as Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the department appearing in the connected appeals

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

section 153(5) would apply and the AO has to pass OGE within the time specified thereunder read with II Proviso thereto; in respect of issues which are set aside [ie., Sl.Nos. 1, 2 & 7],the AO had to pass OGE following the principles already settled; accordingly, it has to be held that the AO was required to pass

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

47,530/- after claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act to the extent of Rs.881,34,08,342/- The assessee-company also had international transactions with Associated Enterprises, which were referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

47,530/- after claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act to the extent of Rs.881,34,08,342/- The assessee-company also had international transactions with Associated Enterprises, which were referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2.—For the purposes of this sub-section "written down value of the block of assets" shall have the same meaning as in clause* (c) of sub-section† (6) of section 43. Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "assets" shall mean— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; 14 (b) intangible assets, being

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

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

price paid for them was in the nature of capital outlay and no part of it could be set off as expenditure against income accruing on those securities. The Court was not directly 22 concerned with the issue whether the securities from part of stock-in-trade or capital assets. 4. The question whether a particular item of investment

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

transfer of a long term capital asset under Section 2(47) of the Act? iv. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between the option/exercise price

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

47 167. N Narayana s/o Muniswamiyappa, aged about 62 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 168. K. Channigaraya, s/o Krishnachari, aged about 49 years, Working as Technician, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 169. S Shivanna, s/o C Rangappa, aged about 56 years, Working

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

47 or section 170 or to the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the demerged company and the resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case may be, shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates as if the succession or the amalgamation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee namely Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Novell Inc. U.S. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Novell U.S.' for short) and is a capital service provider. The assessee is engaged in the 4 business of providing software development and support services to its associative

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

47 YEARS, 2 . SRI AKASH RANKA S/O LATE MAHAVEER RANKA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ® 2 3 . SMT SAPNA KOTHARI D/O LATE MAHAVEER RANKA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.H-7, 30TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. 4 . P MANJUNATH S/O P Y SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1282, 13TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

47 appellate bench held that the Recovery Officer had failed to comply with Rule 11, sub-rule (2) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is made applicable to proceedings before the Recovery Officer, and set aside the proceedings, including the sale of the property. The Apex Court held that in the absence of fraud