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

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

additions or alterations that provide an enhanced value of an enduring nature to the capital asset. The Commissioner also held that the payment as contended, was not made by the Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021 Page 4 of 20 assessee to remove encumbrances. 3.3 The Commissioner also held that provisions of sections

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

additional income-tax is conditioned by the existence of income and profits, to the total of which income the rate is made applicable. Unless some other amount, not strictly income, is by law deemed to be income [see, for example, Mc Gregor & Balfour Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1959) 36 ITR 65] we cannot improve the existing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

gains of business or profession" and Section 29 mandates that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43A. That being the law, Income- tax Officer was bound to allow depreciation whether the assessee chooses to claim the same or not. To arrive at the profit, depreciation

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the amendment, with effect from 1-4-2003 the Explanation “local authority” was defined to include only the authorities enumerated in the Explanation, which

ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT V. PATEL

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

Income Tax vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., [2008] 297 ITR 167 (SC). Hence, these appeals deserve to be dismissed at the threshold. Discussion:­ 6 9) Before examining the case at hand, it is pertinent to have an   understanding   of   the   words   “Perquisite”   and   “Capital Gains”.  The word “Perquisite” in common parlance  may be defined as any perk or benefit attached

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

capital assets, but not by the appellant-Corporation itself. Thus, a conclusion was reached that, in terms of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’) as it stood for the relevant assessment year, any expenditure (except of the prohibited type) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

gains and consequently, added the same to the income for the year under consideration.   The   Commissioner,   IT (Appeals), Mumbai dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the AO and upheld   the   view   of   the   AO   to   treat   the transaction as income for capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NAVIN SARDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEERUT

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

additional costs incurred by Contractor for such mobilisation in excess of the Mobilisation Fee shall be borne by the Operator. Contractor shall invoice Operator for payment of the Mobilization Fee after the Drilling Unit is jacked-up on the first well location and ready to spud the well. Operator shall make payment to Contractor no later than thirty (30) days