THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

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

3. For deciding this batch of appeals, it shall be sufficient to notice the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18067 of 2018 – The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota. 4. Section 10(20) has been amended by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003. A Notice under Section 142(1) of 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

3) __________________________________________________________ ……………………… ……………………… ……………………… 10 Page 11 JUDGMENT ……………………… ……………………… 6. Maharashtra (i) Bombay Thana Area. (ii) Poona-Pimpri-Chinchwad area. (iii) Khopoli area. (iv) Areas within the limits of- (a)Nagpur Municipal Corporation. (b)Sholapur Municipal Corporation. 8. Section 54G of the Income Tax Act inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1.4.1988 reads as follows: “54G. Exemption of capital gains

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

3 its earlier judgment in the case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Azadpur v. Commissioner of Income- tax – (I.T.A. No.749/2006) dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Hence this civil appeal. 9. At the outset, it may be stated that all AMCs at different places were enjoying exemption from income tax under Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act prior

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

10; and (ii) residence for capital gains taxation under Article 13(4). The relevant portion reads as under: “CBDT Circular No. 789, Clarification Regarding Taxation of Income from Dividends and Capital Gains Under the Indo-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Convention (DTAC) dated 13.04.2000: 1. The provisions of the Indo-Mauritius DTAC of 1983 apply to ‘residents’ of both India

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

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

gains under Section 45 of the Act. If not, it was liable to be taxed as ’income from other sources’ under Section 10(3) read with Section 56 of the Act. Section 2(24)(vi) defines ’income’ as including "any capital

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

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

3) of Section 80-IC mentions about the deduction that is permissible, namely, 100% 14 deduction of the profits and gains for first five years and 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) for the next five years. This sub-section, in any case, does not deal with the ‘initial assessment year’. 13.Learned counsel appearing for the assessees

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

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10 additions were made by the first respondent, one of them being in respect of liability under Section 115QA of the Act. Since we are concerned in this appeal only with the issue with regard to liability under Section 115QA, we need not deal with other issues. f) As regards the issue in question, the submissions advanced on behalf

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

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

10. Section 45 of the Act reads as follows: “45. Capital gains.—(1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in Sections 53, 54, 54-B, 54-D, 54-E, 54-F and 54-G, be chargeable to income tax under the head ‘Capital gains

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

capital, and the gain from foreign exchange fluctuation comes within the permissible deduction of Section 80 HHC of the Act. He places strong reliance on Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta1 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd2. The Learned Counsel also places reliance on Commissioner of Income

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

10 percent of the amount specified in sub-section (2) of section 44BB. Section 44BB is a special provision relating to non-resident assessee who is providing services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils in or outside

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

3 528 in Sector 8, Chandigarh so that the sale proceeds, including capital gain, can be used for purchase of the aforestated House No. 528. The said house was purchased on 30th April, 2003 i.e. well within one year from the date on which the agreement to sell had been entered into by the appellants. The validity of the Will

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

capital goods and plant and machinery if he claims depreciation on the said tax component under the Income Tax Act. The object is that a registered person does not take advantage of both depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read

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

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

Section 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be made in ascertaining profits taxable under s. 10(1). In Income Tax Commissioner v. Chitnavis [(1932) LR 59 IA 290, 296, 297] the point for decision was whether a bad debt could