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. When as a result of the reducing of the face value of the shares, the share capital is reduced, the right of the preference shareholder to the dividend or his share capital and the right to share

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

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

gains which are liable to be taxed under s. 10(1) are what are understood to be such according to ordinary commercial principles. “The word ‘profits’ … is to be understood”, observed Lord Halsbury in Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Styles [(1892) AC 309, 315 : 3 TC 185, 188] “in its natural and proper sense — in a sense which no commercial

SAHARANPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ETC.ETC

gains. 133 These apart, there are clearly situations in which the actual cost does get altered prospectively and not retrospectively. One such instance is where the cost of an asset increases or decreases on account of a fluctuation in the value of the currency. Suppose an asset was purchased in 1965 for $10,000 (equivalent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

gains from business or profession by virtue of deeming fiction, but the receipts do not become business profits. He, therefore, submitted that notional receipt of profit is in the nature of capital receipt and as there is no provision or procedure in the Act for taxing it again after receipt of additional http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

138 ITR 570 12 Income Tax v. Amrit lal Chunilal2 It was found that in the said case the assessee therein was not found to be the owner whereas the ITAT found the appellant to be the owner. The High court agreed with the said finding. Thereafter, the High Court went on to deal with the argument that the words

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

138 ITR 91. Before we consider the rival contentions, we may note down the relevant provisions of law both in 1922 Act and 1961 Act. I.T. ACT. 1922 "10_ Business. (1) The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head "Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation" in respect f the profits and gains of any business

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