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

capital gains of Rs. 7,45,109 could not be considered for purposes of computing the distributable income of the assessee-company for the purposes of section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and (2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling the orders passed by the Income

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

gains under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 80- IB; or (vi) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility as defined as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80-IA and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in that

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gain was determined to be Rs.3,09,78,478 by taking the valuation of the 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant as Rs.1,44,92,907 as on 01.04.1981. In view of the said order of assessment, a show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was served to which a reply was filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital gains”. 7. The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, held

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

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NAVIN SARDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEERUT

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable to, the assessee. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "plant" includes ships, aircraft, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatus and equipment, used for the purposes of the said business; (ii) "mineral oil" includes petroleum and natural gas.” 5) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision brings out the following salient

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

143 of the Act. 11.3. In the assessment order dated 31.03.2004, total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 96,25,86,888.00 which resulted in net demand of Rs. 55,25,86,888.00 including interest under Section 234B of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

143(1A) was amended by Finance Act, 1993 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) have been amended much later by Finance Act, 2002 with prospective effect from 1.4.2003. The two questions which arise in the present cases are, prior to http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17 the amendments

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

143 it was noticed by the Department that the assessee had debited to its Profit & Loss Account a sum of Rs. 41,06,746.00 out of which a sum of Rs. 29,49,088.00 was the unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation on the last date of the accounting year. The AO held that the liability

ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT V. PATEL

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) and determined the   total   income   of   the   Respondent   at   Rs   7,23,11,013/­ against the declared income. (c) Being   aggrieved,   the   Respondent   preferred   an   appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being No. CAB/I­643/2000­2001.   After   considering   the   case,   learned CIT   (Appeals),   vide

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR

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

capital gains for the Page 6 of 44 AY 2009­10. The CIT (A) also discarded the submissions   made   by   the   assessee   that transfer of development rights were made in FY   2008­09   pursuant   to   the   MOU   dated 27.12.2007.   In   the   absence   of   proof   to buttress   such   claim,   the   CIT   (A)   also discarded the claim of the assessee that value

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

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

capital gain tax was offered and paid. The assessment was completed on 15.12.2019 by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income

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

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

143(3) read with Section 147 computing the gross total income at Rs.34,15,583/-. Though, the assessee had disclaimed deduction in respect of depreciation, the AO allowed deduction on this account as well in respect of the same in the sum of Rs.2,13,89,379/- while computing the profit and gains of business. After reducing the gross total

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

143(2) of the Act, 1961. 2.3 By order dated 24.11.2010, the Deputy Commissioner disallowed the deductions as claimed. The CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 2 of 36 order of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the exemption as claimed, came to be upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed