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

13 SCC 225 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 24 of 91 c. In response to the principles for examining the constitutional validity of taxation statutes, he submitted that the test of vice of discrimination in a taxing statute is less rigorous. He submitted that the Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate classifications given

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

13 learned counsel, are undoubtedly taxable in India in the hands of the recipient. Nevertheless, no tax would be deductible at source thereon as they are made outside India and are not subject to the TDS provisions. 15. On the point of interpretation of Section 192(1), learned counsel submitted that the said section can be divided into two distinct

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

1) of Section 80L, if any does not, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum amount allowable as deduction in his case under that section; and (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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

1)(d), and thus could not be used to nullify the grandfathering clause. 6.19. Lastly, the High Court found the AAR’s interpretation of Article 13(3A) to be legally unsound and held that the AAR had erroneously concluded that the sale of shares in a Singapore company would not fall under Article 13(3A), on the premise that

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

D India Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax5 (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Associated Electronics & Electricals Industries (Bangalore) (P) Ltd.6 (b) Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, his other submission was that if at all the capital gain tax was payable, liability to pay the same was that of the partnership firm and not the individual

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

13 Central Government is empowered to notify from time to time the Accounting Standards to be followed by any class of assessees or in respect of any class of income. Accordingly, under Section 209 of the Companies Act, mercantile system of accounting is made mandatory for companies. In other words, accounting standard which is continuously adopted by an assessee

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

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

The appeal is allowed

13 of the said rules provides that a registered valuer can be deregistered if the circumstances so warrant. 76. It is in the aforementioned premise, provisions of the Act, the imposition of tax relating to ’capital gain’ are required to be taken into consideration. Section 48 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the income chargeable under the head "capital

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

d) extra-shift allowance double shift and triple shift; (xii) total depreciation; (xiii) investment allowance claimed (also indicate rate); (xiv) remarks (indicate the amount of initial depreciation, investment allowance or development rebate allowed in respect of the assets in an earlier year). (2) Where the depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause

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

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

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

NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

D G M E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted. 2. In this batch of Civil Appeals, pertaining to assessment years 1990-91 to 1998-99, the question which arises for determination is: whether the concept of “balancing charge” in Section 41(2) could be read into Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. In this