← All Phrases

“Section 112(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 112Section 112(1)(c)5 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 112(1)(c) is Western Automobiles (India) v. CIT (112 ITR 1048), cited in 31 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 112(1)(c)

Western Automobiles (India) v. CIT
112 ITR 1048 · 1978 · High Court
31
citing judgments

Where an assessee agrees to the inclusion of certain amounts discovered from accounts, and such amounts are considered his income, the levy of penalty is justified without requiring further evidence of concealment.

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Limited v. ITO
112 ITR 592 · 1978 · High Court
19
citing judgments

A disallowance of expenses solely due to the deeming fiction of Section 40(a)(ia) does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and therefore, does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Judgments citing Section 112(1)(c)

Rhodianyl.Sas, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4002/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrirhodianyl Sas V/S. Dcit, International Tax 25, Rue De Clinchy, Paris, बनाम Circle -4(1)(1), Mumbai France Air India Building, Outside India. Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicr6367G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 112Section 112(1)(c)Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

capital loss provided by the Assessee based on the contention that in case of unlisted shares of an Indian Company, the provisions of section 112(1)(c) of the Act are applicable and not the provisions of first proviso to section 48. The Ld. DRP/the Ld.AO erred in not considering ... after giving effect to the first or the second proviso), there is no need to recompute the gains and apply the rates under section 112(1)(c)(iii). The Ld. DRP/Ld. AO erred in considering the whole transaction of the Appellant as a single sale contract-based transfer and considering

Firestone Industrial Products Inc, United States vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned addition is deleted

ITA 1066/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had taken a plea that the company is a separate entity from its share holders/members and, with transfer of shares, assets of the company are not transferred, and the same continues to be held by the company. It was also explained that since the assessee did not have PAN at the time of sale of shares, buyer M/s Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd. deducted @20% plus surcharge and cess on such Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee, which is reflected in From 26AS an

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. SupriyaFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 112(1)Section 112(1)(c)Section 112(1)(ii)

plus surcharge and cess, while the Assessee had claimed the tax liability @ 10% plus surcharge and cess as per section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. 2.1 In appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had taken a plea that the company is a separate entity from its share ... long term capital gain on sale of unlisted shares at the rate of 21.63% (including surcharge and cess) under section 112(1)(c) (i) of the Act, as against the tax computed by the assessee in the return of income at the rate of 10.815%. (including surcharge and cess) under

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Mumbai vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4139/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, DR
Section 112Section 115CSection 143Section 144C(5)Section 254Section 45Section 48Section 74

Chapter it only prevents the computation as per second proviso to Section 48 of the Act. ii. He further stated that provision to Section 112 (1) ( c) of the Act is not applicable in case of the assessee who is a non-resident Indian purchasing shares in convertible foreign exchange ... cost of acquisition" and "indexed cost of any improvement" had respectively been substituted. Thus, while calculating capital gain by applying provisions 027. of section 112 (1) C ) of the act , benefits of computation of capital gain without benefit of foreign exchange fluctuation as well as indexation both the does

Cpi India I Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Int.Tax. Circle-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 382/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2016-17 . Cpi India Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O- Vasa Chauhan & International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3Rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai Pan :Aadcc1505G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 112(1)(c)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 48(1)

read with Rule 115A. He observed that while doing so, the assessee has not followed the provisions contained under section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, which 3 | P a g e AY: 2016-17 specifically debars the benefits given under the second proviso to section ... first proviso to section 48 of the Act read with Rule 115A without applying the provisions of section 112 is thoroughly misconceived as section 112(1)(c)(ii) specifically excludes applicability of second proviso to section 48 of the Act. In certain circumstances assessee’s claim cannot

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

shares of ₹.100,00,00,000. Further, taxes were withheld at 10.515% at the time of payment of consideration in view of section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. The assessee filed its tax return for the AY 2017-18 and offered the capital gains to tax. During