COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs. JOSEPH VALAKUZHY

gains of such previous year; and the balance, if any, shall be carried forward to the next following previous year and allowed as a deduction in that year. (4) \005\005\005\005.." 10. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 11. It is not disputed before us that a film is a capital asset in the hands

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

The appeal is allowed

loss of Rs.34,12,000/- and claimed carry forward thereof to the subsequent year as against taxable long term capital gain

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

carrying      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 24 of 45 forward of the loss of one year and setting off of the   same   against   the   profit   or   gains   of   the assessee   from   the   same   business   in   the subsequent   year   or   years   The   crucial   words, therefore, are “profits and gains of the assessee from   the   same   business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

forward in support of the claim for deduction: (1) that the loss sustained by reason of embezzlement is a bad debt allowable under s. 10(2)(xi) of the Act; (2) that it is a business expense falling within s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act; and (3) that it is a trading loss, which must be taken into account

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

carried forward and set off against capital gains in a subsequent year. While considering this question, it was held as follows: "From the charging provision of the Act, it is discernible that the words "income" or "profits and gains" should be understood as including losses

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of Section

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed accordingly

capital gains or any other type of income. It is a well settled rule of construction that the Court should as far as possible avoid that construction which attributes irrationality to the legislature. It was also found that, so construed, sub-section (2) was violative of the Constitution and the Court must obviously prefer a construction which renders the statutory

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

gains under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 80- IB; or (vi) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility as defined as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80-IA and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in that

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

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

forward of loss. Chapter VI-A of the Act, on the other hand, provides for special deductions that are allowed at such rates that are specified in the respective provisions on the gross total income of the assessee. Keeping in view the aforesaid scheme of these Chapters, the High Court distinguished the judgment of this Court in Mahendra Mills

M/S SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

loss computed in relation to speculation business carried on by an assessee can only be set off against the profits and gains of another speculation business. The Explanation to Section 73 contains a deeming fiction where certain businesses shall, for the purposes of the section, be deemed to be speculation businesses. The Explanation also carves out an exception in respect

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

forward loss of Rs. 15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs. 11,02,225.00. By order dated nil September, 2002, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax levied a penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00. He distinguished the decision of the Punjab http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17 and Haryana High Court

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

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

carried an appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal in respect of premium, depreciation and interest, which together represented an amount of Rs. 32,84,153.00. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 Pursuant to the order of the CIT (Appeal), the Assessing Officer made an order dated 25.9.1998 giving effect to the appellate order. The Assessing Officer

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

carried to any reserve, provision made for liabilities other than ascertained liabilities, provision for losses of subsidiary companies, etc., if the amounts are debited to the profit and loss account. Liabilities relating to expenditure which has been incurred or which has accrued in respect of expenses which are otherwise deductible in computing income will not be added back. The amount

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of previous years under Section 32(2) of the Act?’ 5 Vide order dated 13.10.2008 in SLP(C) No. 4510 of 2008. Page 8 of 13 ANALYSIS: 9. Section 37(1), inter alia, provides any expenditure (not being an expenditure in the nature described in Section 30 to 36 or in the nature of capital expenditure

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

capital reserves representing surplus arising 23 out of sale proceeds of asset, excluding reserves created by revaluation of asset, as reduced by accumulated loss balance, book value of intangible assets and deferred revenue expenditure, if any; (xv) “standard asset” means the asset in respect of which, no default in repayment of principal or payment of interest is perceived and which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. WILLAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES

Bench: The 60 : 40 Apportionment Under Rule 8(1) Or From 40% Profits On Sales Taxable As Business Income. 3. Rule 8(1) Of The Said Rule Provides That 40% Of The Composite Income From Sale Of Tea, Grown & Manufactured, Arrived At On Making Of The Apportionment \023Shall Be Deemed To Be Income Liable To Tax\024. 4. Assessees Exported Tea In The Accounting Year. They Were Entitled To Deduction Under Section 80Hhc Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, \0211961 Act\024) In Respect Of The Export. They Were In The Business Of Growing & Manufacturing Tea. Since They Earned Composite Income, Their Case Stood Covered By Rule 8(1) Of Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (\0231962 Rule\024 For Short). 5. For The Sake Of Convenience We State The Facts Occurring In Civil Appeal No.3803-3808 Of 2005- Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Willamson Financial Services & Ors. In The Returns, The Assessee Claimed Section 80Hhc Deduction Against The Entire Composite Income Before Application Of Rule 8(1).

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business, profession or vocation, the amount of the interest paid: 12. Rule 24 of the 1961 Act reads as under: \02324. Income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller in the taxable territories shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and 40 per cent