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

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

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

capital gains in a particular case may tantamount to a failure in raising a substantial question of law in terms of Section 260A of the Act. However, the same may not apply on interest as the interest is automatic and mandatory. 4.14 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed that the present appeals be dismissed

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

reassessment. 4. The “reasons to believe” which were the basis for re-opening the assessment, recorded that search proceedings were conducted in the M.R. Shah group and Champalal group of companies on 20.09.2016 and that during the course of previous searches in the case of Shirish Chandrakant Shah, an accommodation entry provider in Mumbai, it was observed that huge amounts

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Capital Gains & Income from other sources. The Section 14A relates to expenditure incurred in relation to income which are not includable in Total Income and which are exempted from tax. No taxes are therefore levied on such exempted income. The Section 14A had been incorporated in the Income Tax Act to ensure that expenditure incurred in generating such tax exempted

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

Capital gains”. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge. Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by Section 45 must fall under

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 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

K.M. SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(7),NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on the amount awarded on year to year basis. 4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17.9.1993 informing the ITO that he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829/- and interest accrued from year to year was assessable in each year. Year-wise break

SHEO NATH SINGH vs. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the

capital should be treated as, income. It was finally held that the assessee had failed to establish that the preconditions contained in S. 34 (1-A) had not been fulfilled and consequently there was an initial lack of jurisdiction. Section 34 (1-A) to the extent it is necessary, may be reproduced. "34 (1-A). if, in the- case

SUNDARAM & COMPANY (P.) LTD. MADURAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

gains, such, for instance, as are granted under ss. 15A, 15C, 49A, 49B, 49C, 49D and 60 of the Act." This Court affirmed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in P. S. Subramanyan, Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I (1) and Another v. Simplex Mills Ltd. 2 In Simplex Mills(2) case advance tax paid by the assessee

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

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”. 1 Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances 40A.(7)(a) Subject to the provisions of Clause

PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, WARD 'A', RAJKOT,GUJARAT

capital assets in ques- tion during the previous years. Under section 10 of the 1922 Act an assessee is liable to pay tax under the head "Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation, carried on by him". Such profits or gains shall be computed after making a number of allowances. Those allowances included the allowances provided by section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

Reassessment by the I.T.O. disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15,50,526. On appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256(1) the High Court answered

ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN

The appeal is disposed of as above and the matter is

capital expenditure, while deduction of royalty paid by the assessee-company in excess of Rs.1,50,000 was allowed. The same position was maintained by him in respect of the assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62. In the year 1959, notices for reassessment of tax, under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income

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

reassessment proceedings and passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 computing the gross total income at Rs.34,15,583/-. Though, the assessee had disclaimed deduction in respect of depreciation, the AO allowed deduction on this account as well in respect of the same in the sum of Rs.2,13,89,379/- while computing the profit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee should be assessed not on the cash basis but on the accrual basis and, according to the Tribunal, the sum of Rs. 1, 15,559 had accrued to the assessee during the period of accounts, viz., http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

capital. The allegation against the company is in relation to cash deposits of total 6 Rs.13,79,10,500/- soon after demonetization on 08.11.2016. The satisfaction note prepared by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1, Jalpaiguri was approved by Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit- 5, Kolkata and further approved by DGIT (Investigation), Kolkata on 07.08.2018. The High Court also quoted