LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

short term capital gains, which is perfectly justified in law. It is further contended that the agreement entered into on 01.04.1995, on the basis of which advance of Rs.40.00 lakhs had been given by the assessee, did not refer to the assessee being given possession of the land in question and as such, the authorities have rightly denied the benefit

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

short) with M/s R&S Turnkey Contractors Private Limited for development of 84 cents of land. As per the JDA dated 21.10.2010, the - 4 - assessee was entitled to 30% of the total saleable super built up area. In the supplementary JDA dated 26.5.2011 the sharing ratio was revised to 26.89% and 73.11% between the assessee and the developer. The assessing

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

short) with Sri Ramesh Kumar on 31.8.2005 with respect to 4.4 acres of property situated at Kodihalli Village. As per the terms of the said agreement, the assessee was entitled to receive 25% of the built up area with proportionate undivided share in common areas and facilities. With respect to the said property, the assessee entered into a sale deed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

short term capital gain separately. But the Tribunal ultimately arrived at a conclusion that even if this exercise is being done, then there will not be any tax liability and therefore, there is no need to set aside the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court has upheld this finding of the Tribunal. In the light of the above

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

short term Capital gains added by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 15. Re-Disallowance of premium on Insurance Policy Rs.3,33,333/- I.T.A No.201/2017 13 Assessee Firm had taken a Insurance Policy on its Partner Shri. Aeranpurwala. The assessee has held that Shri. Aeranpurwala had become a Director of another Company in which the business was carried on. Assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

short). The tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2013 inter alia held that the firm BVRE was genuine and was not defunct but was a legally existing partnership firm. It was further held that a person shown in the partnership deed as a partner representing 10 the HUF, does not become the partner and therefore, HUF was not the partner of BVRE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

short) challenging the Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench [B] dated 6.2.2009 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The facts in brief are that the Assessee was carrying on the business of manufacture and marketing of electrical appliances and the search was conducted in the premises of the Managing Director of the Company. During

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

short term capital gains', as against income under the head 'long 3 term capital gains' as claimed by the Appellant? ii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that stock options did not constitute a 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Act? iii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in concluding that cashless exercise of stock options

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

short term capital gains from the transaction and paid tax thereon at the prescribed rate. It was further held that the cost of acquisition of equity shares on conversion of foreign currency convertible bonds was shown to be at `873.83 and `858.08 per share whereas 4 in fact the assessee converted the bonds into shares at `200/- per share

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

short ‘Act’) itself does not survive, can tax be levied by the Assessing Officer for a totally different reason or issue, which was not the subject matter of reopening the assessment. In other words, if reasons for reopening are (a) and (b) and during fresh assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, income is found to have escaped from

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

short facts of the case appears to be that the assessee filed returns for the Assessment Year 2002-03 10 on 31.10.2002 declaring the total income at Rs.14,67,913/-. Even for the subsequent Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, respective incomes were declared, but the common basis in the returns filed by the assessee was that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

short facts of the case appears to be that the assessee filed returns for the Assessment Year 2002-03 10 on 31.10.2002 declaring the total income at Rs.14,67,913/-. Even for the subsequent Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, respective incomes were declared, but the common basis in the returns filed by the assessee was that

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

termed as perquisites or same has to treated as capital gains. This appeal is preferred by the assessee, which was admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 12.11.2010 on following substantial questions of law: i) Whether in law, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act was only on change of opinion and consequently whether

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SANYO BPL P LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty to revive the same if the occasion so

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

short term capital gain by adopting guidance value of the property by erroneously holding that the assessing authority ought to 3 have referred the matter to DVO for determination guidance value as per Section 50C of the Act even when same is not mandatory? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

short ‘the I.T.Act’) in view of Section 96 of the said Act of 2013 and the Circular dated 25.10.2016 issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes as well as Section 194-LA of the I.T.Act w.e.f 01.04.2017. (iv) The compensation payable in favour of the petitioners is also exempt from payment of income tax and action of the respondents

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

short ‘the I.T.Act’) in view of Section 96 of the said Act of 2013 and the Circular dated 25.10.2016 issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes as well as Section 194-LA of the I.T.Act w.e.f 01.04.2017. (iv) The compensation payable in favour of the petitioners is also exempt from payment of income tax and action of the respondents