VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

12 consideration at which the firm was sold was 92 crores, balance ₹ amount of 70,47,10,000 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

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

12 JUDGMENT (c) shifted the original asset and transferred the establishment of such undertaking to such area; and (d) incurred expenses on such other purpose as may be specified in a scheme framed by the Central Government for the purposes of this section, then, instead of the capital gain

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

12. At the outset, we deem it apt to deal extensively with the relevant background and provisions pertaining thereto, to shed light on the issue at hand. DTAA 12.1. The fulcrum of the DTAA with respect to capital gains taxation lies in Article 13, which initially contained five paragraphs. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 allocated taxation rights to the source

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

Section 28 entirely, relying instead solely on Rasiklal Maneklal. That decision, it was pointed out, is relevant only to the taxation of capital gains under the Income- tax Act, 1922, and has been clarified to be inapplicable by this Court in Grace Collis. Since the 12

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. MADURAI MILLS CO. LIMITED

capital gains. The contention of the assessee was that since the sale of the shares and securities fell within the purview of the third proviso to section 12

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

Section 12-B of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided for payment of tax under capital gains ’in respect of any profits

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

12 of 15 while Section 50(2) was not the source of option. It said Section 50 specified that only Section 48 and 49 were subject to the modification mentioned therein and that the option given in Section 55(2) was not made subject to Section 50. The High Court was of the view that it appeared that

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head “Capital gains”, as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand. ...12

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

capital gains. According to section 12(1A) income from other sources shall include dividends. Under section 12B as it stood

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

section 23 A of the 1922 Act. In our view, there is really no conflict of opinion amongst the decisions of the High Courts. The consensus appears to be that there cannot be a hard and fast rule that capital gains ought or ought not to be treated as commercial or business profits on which dividends could be distributed

JAMES ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR OFTHE ESTATE OF THELATE HENR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY

12 B 168 of the Income-tax Act and the appellant was assessed to tax on such capital gain for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49. The appellant contended that there had been a distribution of capital assets by him under the will of Henry Gannon and therefore he came under the protection of the third proviso

VANIA SILK MILLS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the’ appeal succeeds and the impugned

capital asset. That the receipt of his share in the asset brings about automatically the extin- guishment of the shareholder’s rights in the asset cannot, however, be gainsaid. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in R.M. Amin’s case (supra) was appealed against and this Court while approving’ the ratio of the said decision fur- ther explained

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

capital gain can be availed only if a residential house i.e. a new asset is purchased within one year before or within two years after the date on which the transfer of the residential house/original asset takes place. In the instant case, the residential house had been transferred by the appellants-assessees on 24th September, 2004 whereas they had purchased

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

12-B-Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5 CH. 2) Seventh Schedule, List I, Item 54-Tax on capital gains, if ultra vires--Capital gains, if income -Legislative practice-Interpretation of words- Words used in Constitution Act. HEADNOTE: Section

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

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

gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset is liable to be taxed under Section 45 of the Act. 12

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHIVAKAMI CO. PVT. LTD

capital gain at Rs.91,599 and Rs.54,000 respectively under the first proviso to section 12-B(2) of the 1922 Act. The Appellate

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains. The amount of tax sought to be evaded is worked out as per clause (a) to Explanation 4 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act at 20% of Rs.3,43,90,478 i.e. Rs.68,78,095. Accordingly, a minimum penalty of Rs.68,78,095 is levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act." 12

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

12, 1953, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 43 of 1952. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, G. N. Joshi and B. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. N. A. Palkhivala, D. H. Dwarkadas, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent. 1957. May 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered