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

11. It is pointed out that Section 17(5)(c) carves out an exception only for works contracts, assuming that this is the only category of service where there is no breakage in the chain of taxable supplies. It is submitted that while Section 17(5)(c) allows ITC on works contracts for contractors, ITC has been blocked for other

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

11 salaries paid by any other person, which is not on account of or on behalf of such employer, notwithstanding that such salaries may have nexus with the service of the employee with that employer and may be assessable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient employee. According to the learned counsel, on facts, the payment

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.

D G M E N T K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are concerned with four Criminal Appeals No.61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M/s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

d) the tax deductible at source under section 192 from the income chargeable http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13 under the head "Salaries" has been deducted from that income. (2) In the case of any person who, in the Assessing Officer’s opinion, is assessable under this Act, whether on his own total income

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

11 first apportioned among the assessees in the ratio in which they had received the said amount. Thereafter, this amount is divided into long term capital gains and short term capital gains. Two components of long term capital gains are taken into consideration, namely goodwill and sale of land. Likewise, short term capital gain is arrived at in respect

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

11 For short, “CBDT” 17 investments made before 01.04.2017 were grandfathered and not subject to capital gains tax in India. Thus, even under the amended DTAA between India and Mauritius, what was not taxable was capital gains arising from the sale of shares of a company resident in India. 6.7. Therefore, the AAR found that exemption from capital gains

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

11 which deals with exchange differences arising on repayment of liabilities incurred for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets, which topic falls under Section 43A of the 1961 Act. At this stage, we are concerned only with para 9 which deals with revenue items. Para 9 of AS-11 16 recognises exchange differences as income or expense. In cases where

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

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

capital gains, once this Court has recognized that amalgamation entails a transfer, that conclusion cannot be ignored while considering the ambit of Section 28. 16.4. The real question, therefore, is whether an amalgamation – though, in company law, it operates as a statutory substitution of rights – nonetheless gives 36 rise to taxable business profits under Section

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

D. No. 22308/2022 has been filed by the revenue against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Madras High Court dismissing Tax Case (Appeal) No. 600 of 2010 (CIT, Chennai Vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Limited) of the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. 5. The perennial question of whether an expenditure incurred by an assessee is capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

Capital gains-long 90,780,066 90,780,066 Gross Total Income 254,281,464 254,281,464 Less deduction under Chapter VI-A 80G-Donation 80HHC-profits 80-1A new industrial unit 1,500,000 6,590,600 11,322,409 1,500,000 6,590,600 11,322,409 Net Income

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would become taxable income which is not the intention of Section 45Q of the IT Act. That, the said 1998 Directions cannot be taken as an excuse by the NBFC to compute lower taxable income under

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

gains of business or profession" and Section 29 mandates that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43A. That being the law, Income- tax Officer was bound to allow depreciation whether the assessee chooses to claim the same or not. To arrive at the profit, depreciation

SHRIMAND PADMARAJA R. KADAMBANDA, DHULIA vs. THE COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

d) of the proviso to section 15(1) of the Act, no statutory right is created. This is unlike those cases falling under clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 15. These constitute different clauses as has already been pointed out by us. The fact that the assessee has applied for a grant for maintenance

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

D G M E N T RUMA PAL, J. The question to be decided in these appeals is whether the word ’assets’ in Section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereafter as the ’Act’) must be understood and construed according to the definition of the word ’capital assets’ in Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3952-3955 OF 2002 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 8509-10 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda \005 Appellant (s) versus M/s. Core Health Care Ltd. ... Respondent (s) KAPADIA, J. For the sake of convenience we state the facts occurring in Civil Appeal Nos.3952-55 of 2002 \026 Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

11. Section 36 of the Act occurs under the heading ‘other deductions’, and its relevant extract, for the purpose of this case, is as follows: “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section