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

4 Page 5 JUDGMENT notification dated 22.9.1967 by which Thane had been declared to be an urban area for the purpose of Chapter XXII-B. He further contended that Section 54G was inserted on 1.4.1988 at the same time that Section 280ZA was omitted and that therefore Section 24 of the General Clauses Act would be attracted to the facts

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital gain which could then be used to declare a special dividend to the shareholders of HTIL. We find no merit in this argument. 134. Firstly, the Tier I (Mauritius companies) were the indirect subsidiaries of HTIL who could have influenced the former to sell the shares of Indian companies in which event the gains would have arisen

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

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. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

capital and current accounts of the partners. That apart, the assessing officer also obtained a balance sheet for the assessment year 1988–1989 from the South Indian Bank which also indicated unexplained profits and gains of the partners. It was thereafter that reassessment proceedings were initiated. First appellate authority i.e. CIT(A) not only affirmed the reassessment orders

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

capital or revenue receipt. This additional issue has been raised in Civil Appeal No.9917 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) and also in Civil Appeal No.8983 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chhattisgarh Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) RECOMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

gains to be computed after making the allowances therein set out. Clause (vi) thereof speaks of allowances in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant, etc., and the proviso (a) to clause (vi) reads thus: "Provided that the prescribed particulars have been duly furnished". In proceedings for the Assessment Year 1955-56, the Income-tax Officer held that depreciation must

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

4 SCC 173, this Court construed Section 52 of the Income Tax Act as applying only to cases where ‘understatement’ is be found – an ‘understatement’ is not to be found in the literal language of Section 52, but was introduced by this Court to streamline the provision in the light of the object sought to be achieved by the said

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs. JOSEPH VALAKUZHY

139, can be carried forward and set off under sub-section (1) of Section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of Section 74 or sub-section (3) of Section 74A. 8. Evidently, Chapter VI deals with carry forward of business losses. 9. Rule 9A of the Rules, which deals with

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

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

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause

PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, WARD 'A', RAJKOT,GUJARAT

4, 1966 by the Incometax Officer to the appellant stating that he had reason to believe that income of the appellant chargeable to tax for the assessment years in question had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act of 1961. The Income-tax Officer accordingly stated that he proposed to recompute and reas- sess the income/loss/depreciation

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

4 fall in line with the suggested interpretation, once it is understood that the reference to "depreciation actually allowed" should be read subject to the limitation of clause (c) of proviso to S. 10(2)(vi) [now section 34(3)]. Explanation 6 offers no difficulty 139 as the relationship as "parent" and "subsidiary" between the companies involved in the transfer

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

capital. The allegation against the company is in relation to cash deposits of total 6 Rs.13,79,10,500/- soon after demonetization on 08.11.2016. The satisfaction note prepared by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1, Jalpaiguri was approved by Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit- 5, Kolkata and further approved by DGIT (Investigation), Kolkata on 07.08.2018. The High Court also quoted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

section of the public as distinguished from specified individuals. [571 F-H]. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Yorkshire Agricultural Society, [1928] 1 K.B. 611 and The institution of Civil Engineers v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 16 T.C. 158, relied on. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay Presidency, Sind and Baluchistan v. The Grain Merchants’ Association of Bombay, 6 I.T.R. 427, disapproved