SHRI KARTIKEYA vs. .SARABHAI. VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Justice K.T. Thomas S. Ganesh, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advs. for M/S. J.B.D. & Co, Advs. for the appellant S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advs. for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: J U D G M E N T KIRPAL, J. The only question which arises for consideration

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

natural justice in the present case, unlike in Shiv Raj Gupta where an altogether new head of income was introduced without notice to the assessee. Here, the High Court expressly recorded the preliminary objections and submissions of the appellants with respect to Section 28 and dealt with them. Thus, the parties had full opportunity to address this aspect before remand

NAVINCHANDRA MAFATLAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY CITY

capital gains either according to its natural import or common usage or according to judicial interpretation of relevant legislation both in England and in India. He submitted that the learned Chief Justice

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obviously, the finding of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars cannot be faulted..." 16. Mr. Anil B. Dewan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent

EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

gains of business of the assessee. This view taken by the Tribunal was challenged in a reference made to the High Court at the instance of the Revenue. The High Court too was inclined to take the same view as the Tribunal, but it felt compelled by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maheshwari Devi

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

gains. Bonus shares go by the modern name "capitalization of shares". AND the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1986) 162 ITR 800, CIT Vs. Mihir Textiles Limtied, (1994) 206 ITR 112 (Gujarat), Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited Vs. CIT, (1994) 210 ITR 358, CIT Vs. Ajit Mills Limited

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

capital expenditure incurred by a corporation or body corporate, by whatever name called, constituted or established by a Central, State or Provincial Act for the objects and purposes authorised by such Act under which such corporation or body corporate was constituted or established, shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income under the head ‘profits and gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS SUPPLY AGENCY LTD

In the result we reverse the judgment of the High Court and allow the

gains if the sale is of a capital asset, and as business profit if the sale is in the course of business or the transaction constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9 The line between capital sales and sales producing income has been drawn by Lord Justice

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital gain in the hands of the appellant, being part of the full value of the sale consideration paid for transfer of shares. 10. Shri Arvind Datar and Shri Ajay Vohra, learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of the appellant, have taken us through the orders of the Income Tax Authorities, the Appellate Tribunal and the impugned judgment

SAROJ KUMAR MAZUMDAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WESTBENGAL, CALCUTTA

The appeal is allowed with costs

Gains tax. The Department went up in appeal to the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, which, by its judgment dated March 26, 1954, allowed the appeal. The Tribunal pointed out that the assessee was not a man of such large means as to think of acquiring the plot for his own residential or business purposes. The admitted shares worth

A.L.A. FIRM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

capital gain but the case has proceeded on the footing that such a statement was there before the officer. This, therefore, is nothing but a case of "change of opinion". On the other hand, the authorities and the Tribunal have drawn attention to the fact that the return, the S. 143(2) notice and assessment were all on the same

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

natural justice and/or even if in the assessment order there is no specific order to levy the interest but the interest charged is indicated in the ITNS 150 accompanying the assessment order and the same would be sufficient compliance for demanding interest. Heavy reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anjum

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

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. Facts in M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7632/08] – CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASE: 22. The main issue which arises

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY vs. H. HOLCK LARSEN

Justice Clerk observed that the test was whether the sum of gain that has been made was a mere enhancement of value by realising a security, or was it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making. In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lysaght, [1928] A.C. 234= 13 Tax Cases

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

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

capital expenditure or personal expenditure, shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”. Therefore, it is clear that there is no restriction under Section 37(1) of the Act that, for an expenditure to be deductible under it, it must be incurred in India. b) This position

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

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

capital gains as required under section 71. Be that as it may, I have no hesitation in saying that if it were a pure question of law capable of being adjudged on the material on record, the Tribunal was under a statutory obligation to entertain and decide the same. I, however, think that, on the admitted facts, the petitioner

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares were issued then, balance amount will be treated as distribution of income to shareholder

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Gains (LTCG) in the shares of Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited (now known as Yantra Natural Resources Limited) from Shirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) through Pradip Birewar. Pradip Birewar is an Ahmedabad based accommodation entry provider who is facilitating one time and other accommodation entries including LTCG entries to various clients on receipt of cash. He is facilitating these entries through bigger