THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

income from capital gains on the sale of shares. Circular No. 789 reiterated the stand taken in Circular No. 682, holding that a resident of Mauritius would not be subjected to capital gains tax arising in India consequent to the sale of shares under Article 13(4) of the DTAA. Of equal significance were certain proposed amendments

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

additional shares/debentures comes into existence and the date of renunciation [transfer] of such right. Our view is based on the judgement of this Court in the case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay, reported in [1967] 63 I.T.R. 651], which has taken the view that, for computing capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY vs. CHUGANDAS AND CO., BOMBAY

addition to that head. As observed by this Court in The United Commercial Bank Ltd., Calcutta v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal(1) "the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is that the various heads of income, profits and gains enumerated in s. 6 are mutually exclusive, each head being specific to cover the item) arising

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. P.V.A.L. KULANDAGAN CHETTIAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS

capital gains is also income as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in 202 ITR 508 has accepted this kind of reasoning and since no appeal has been filed to this Court against the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in 202 ITR 508, the law declared therein

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital gains, the cost of shares in the amalgamated company shall be deemed to be the cost of shares in the amalgamating company. By parity of reasoning, in the case of stock-in-trade also, the original cost must be preserved and any profit should be recognized only at the time of realisation. 4.6. It was finally submitted that

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

income chargeable under the head "Capital gains", the value consideration received on transfer of the capital asset is to be deducted by the expenditure incurred on the transfer and the cost of acquisition of the capital asset and the cost of any improvement thereon. The expenditure that might have been incurred on the transfer of capital asset and the cost

JAMES ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR OFTHE ESTATE OF THELATE HENR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY

income of the previous year in which the sale, exchange or transfer took place: Provided further that any transfer of capital assets by reason of the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law for the time being in force relating to the compulsory http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7 acquisition of property for public purposes

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

additional income-tax of 50% of the profit available, which was fixed at Rs.51,210 for the year 1974-75 and Rs. 11,451 for the year 1975-76. The appeals filed by the appellant before the Appellate Commissioner of the Income Tax were rejected by upholding the orders of the Income-tax Officer. Further appeals to the Income

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Additional   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax, Bangalore1.   This Court held that under the head “interest on securities”, the interest for a broken period was not an allowable deduction. Being aggrieved by the orders of the CIT, the   appellant   preferred   an   appeal   before   the   Income   Tax Appellate   Tribunal   (for   short,   ‘Appellate   Tribunal’).   The Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that the decision

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

gains should “arise” from the transfer of a capital asset and income should be computed after full value of the consideration has been received or accrued. Since no income was received or had accrued, as the project was finally terminated by the owners on 15 13.06.2011, it was clear that the High Court judgment was correct. Further, sub-clause

SH. SANJEEV LAL ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH&AN

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also upheld the orders passed by the Commissioner and therefore, the appellants had approached the High Court by filing appeals under Section 260 A of the Act, which were dismissed by virtue of the impugned judgments. Thus, the appellants are in appeal before this Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

addition to this reduction in number of shares held by the assessee company in ANNPL, the assessee received an amount of Rs. 3,17,83,474/- from ANNPL. Hence it is seen that in the facts of present case, on account of reduction in number of shares held by the assessee company in ANNPL, the assessee has extinguished its right

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

income of Rs.30,80,030/- was declared by it, inter alia, showing a long term capital loss of Rs.34,12,000/- . The said capital loss was said to have arisen on account of sale of property being land and building known as ’Jekison Niwas’, 220 Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai. Admittedly, the Appellant had 1/4th share therein. It entered into an agreement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. P.S.S. INVESTMENTS (P) LTD

addition, in the case of a company referred to in clause (ii) of the preceding proviso which has distributed to its shareholders during the previous year dividends in excess of six per cent of its paid-up capital, not being dividends payable at a fixed rate-- 83 (A) in the case of a company which is not such

M/S. BADRI PRASAD JAGAN PRASAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

additional period being the period up to its discontinuance. So far as sub-section (4) was concerned, the Chief Justice was of the view that it dealt with a business which had paid tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918, and that the sub- section dealt not so much with the mode of taxing a business which was discontinued

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS. vs. A. KRISHNASWAMI MUDALIAR AND OTHERS

Additional’ income-tax Officer, Vellore declined to accept the statement of account that the firm had earned till August 2, 1948, a net profit of only Rs. 28,643/- as truly representing the profits of the firm. Fie observed that "no stock valuation of the picture has been taken but only the excess collection over purchase value has been returned

VANIA SILK MILLS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the’ appeal succeeds and the impugned

Income-Tax Act. The lncomeTax Officer subjected to tax also the additional amount of Rs.3,50,792 the difference between the amount of insurance claim and the original cost of the machinery---treating the same as capital gains