RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

20 years to a Government College, being S.A. Jain College, Ambala City6; 4 Hindu Undivided Family. 5 For short, ‘the subject land’ or ‘the land in question’. 6 For short, ‘the College’. 3 and the lease was to expire on 31.08.1967. Later on, the College moved the Government of Haryana for compulsory acquisition of the subject land. While acting

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Section 10 (20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provided as under: “CHAPTER III INCOME WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included – (20) the income

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

10,000 was treated as representing goodwill of the ₹ firm which was taxed as long term gain. This mode of arriving at short term and long term capital gain and taxing it accordingly by the Assessing Officer has received the stamp of approval by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as well

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

10. Further, the notes on clauses for the Finance Bill, 1987 reads as under:- “Clause 24 seeks to insert two new sections 54G and 54H in the Income-tax Act. The new section 54G provides for exemption of capital gains on transfer of assets in cases of industrial undertaking shifting from urban area. Sub- section (1) provides that

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

20 from taxation. As the shares of Flipkart, Singapore, had been admittedly acquired prior to 01.04.2017, the assessees claimed exemption from capital gains tax. The AAR rejected the claim, holding that the assessees were mere conduit companies, lacking commercial substance, and were disentitled to claim DTAA benefits. 6.10. In conclusion, the AAR held that the entire arrangement entered into

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

10(2)(vii) of the 1922 Act, and is therefore inapplicable. Similarly, Rasiklal Maneklal and 14 Vania Silk Mills pertain to capital gains and transfer under Section 45, which the appellants themselves concede, have no bearing on the computation of business income. 5.8. It was further submitted that the levy in the present case is not on hypothetical income

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

10 - “The capital asset which the appellant originally possessed consisted of 710 ordinary shares of the company. There was already a provision that, if the company issued any new shares, every holder of old shares would be entitled to such number of ordinary shares as the board may, by resolution, decide. This right was possessed by the appellant because

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

10 restrained from dealing with the house in question by a judicial order and the said judicial order had been vacated only in the month of May, 2004 and therefore, the sale deed could not be executed before the said order was vacated though the agreement to sell had been executed on 27th September, 2002. 19. If one considers

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

20 Pride Foramer S.A. (Civil Appeal No. 4543 of 2013) stated that the appellant in the said case is a non-resident company incorporated in the Republic of France. It also entered into contract with ONGC for hire of its rig for carrying out oil exploration activities by ONGC in India. The rig was located in Singapore and accordingly, under

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains from: (1) Investments in (a) securities of the nature  referred  to   in  Section  8  of  the Indian Income Tax Act; or (b) property of the  nature   referred   to  in   Section   9  of that Act; (2) dividends, or      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 31 of 45 (3)   the   ‘other   sources’   referred   to   in Section

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

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

20 of 27 no such restriction has been brought in law with regard to set off of the value of the unaccounted stock in trade which have been absolutely confiscated. 4.8 Making above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 6. The short question which is posed

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

10. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals), as well as the ITAT, were all correct in bringing capital receipts under the JDA to tax as ‘capital gains’. According to the learned counsel, the present case is squarely covered by Section 2(47)(v) as Section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

10 of 21 In CIT vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [(1989) 177 ITR 443 (Bom.)] two issues were raised. One issue was whether the assessee had a choice in the matter of claiming a deduction on account of depreciation and the second issue was whether, having claimed in the original return, the Income-tax Officer was entitled

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

The appeal is allowed

20,28,478 Less Expenses incurred in relation to sale of property : Solicitor’s fees : Rs.2,50,000 Brokerage : Rs.8,00,000 -------------- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS Rs. 10,50,000 ------------------- Rs.3,09,78,478 =========== The claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs.22,200/- being expenses incurred on account of fees paid to Uday Chande is not admissible

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW. vs. U.P. FOREST CORPORATION

Appeals are allowed

Section 10(20) the Act. The said sub-clause reads as under: "The income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital Gains