M/S FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD BANGALOARE vs. CIT BANGALORE

capital gain shall be exempt to the extent such gain has been utilized for the aforesaid purposes. Explanation to sub-section

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains” and that the taxpayer has claimed exemption in whole or in part by complying with legal provisions (like

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

capital gains" and in the manner indicated in the fasciculus of sections 45 to 55A. The learned counsel for the appellant urged the following contentions in support of the appeal : (a) That the sale proceeds of agricultural land are totally exempt

N. BAGAVATHY AMMAL vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI

gains and subjected to tax. The assessees’ appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were allowed by holding that the scope of Section 46(2) would have to be read in the light of the definition of the word ’capital asset’ in Section 2(14) and that "having exempted

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

exempt as a capital receipt being non-compete fee, as it is taxable as a capital gain in the 18 hands

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

capital gain. The intention of the Legislature or the purpose with which the said provision has been incorporated in the Act, is also very clear that Page 14 JUDGMENT 14 the assessee should be given some relief. Though it has been very often said that common sense is a stranger and an incompatible partner to the Income

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

capital gains cannot be taxed in India. Thereafter, the matter was carried by way of a reference to the High Court. The High Court held that the finding of the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the Avoidance of Double Taxation of income. The High Court took the view that : (i) where there exists a provision

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

exempted from capital gains by statute could be taxed as a casual or non recurring receipt under Section 10(3) read

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

exempted from liability to tax all income, profits and gains earned by conducting a busi- ness, profession or vocation irrespective of whether they were chargeable to tax under the head "profits and gains of business, profession or vocation", and with this view K. T. Desai, J., to whom the case was referred for opinion. agreed. To appreciate the point

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

capital gains which are dealt with by the explanation to section 2(6A) of the Act. There can also be no doubt that whatever amount has been distributed to the assessee company and is attributable to accumulate profits in items 2 and 3 mentioned in the question would constitute dividend in the hands of the assessee and the whole

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

capital gains tax having been decided in favour of the assessee, the question of exemption under Section 54F of the Act would

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA vs. NALIN BEHARI LAL SINGHA ETC

capital gains and not accumulated profits. HEADNOTE: In assessment proceedings for the year 1949-50 the, respondents claimed that certain dividend distributed to them by a company was exempt

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains does not envisage that the valuation given must be true and exact market value. Even the market value of a property may be found to be different having regard to the locale thereof. There was no direct sale instance. The sale instances relied upon by the District Valuer were of 1979 and 1982. 58. In Union of India

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

gain or profit is charged to tax in the year in which transfer of the capital assets takes 7 place. In the instant case, the fundamental question which arises for consideration before this Court is with regard to the taxability   of   the   amount   received   by   the   Respondent   on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs.)   10) It   is   a   matter

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

capital receipts reduced by certain allow- ances only in the previous year, i.e., the year in which the dividend was distributed. The fact that those profits and gains accrued in years prior to the previous year and in- cluded’ portions which were exempt

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

capital   gains   and   not   upon   their   non­ inclusion   under   the   heading   “business”.   The limited   scope   of   the   earlier   decision   was explained by this Court in CIT v. Chugandas & Co. [(1965) 55 ITR 17, 24] . Therein this Court held that interest from securities formed part of the assessee's business income for the purpose of   exemption

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

exempt as a capital receipt being non- compete fee, as it is taxable as a capital gain in the hands

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL vs. H.H. MAHARANI USHA DEVI

exempt under the provisions of Section 5(1)(xiv) of the wealth-Tax Act. During the accounting year relating to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee sold two items of heirloom jewellery for Rs. 13,80,001/-. The assessee claimed before the Tribunal that the heirloom jewellery constituted personal effects of the assessee within the meaning of Section