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

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obviously, the finding of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars cannot be faulted..." 16. Mr. Anil B. Dewan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent

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

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely: 26 (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto:” 18. Section

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, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

144, section 147, section 154, section 155, sub-section (4) of section 245D, section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264, the amount of tax payable under this Act is reduced or increased, as the case may be, the amount of tax credit allowed under this section shall also be increased or reduced accordingly

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.

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward 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, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

A.L.A. FIRM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

capital gains were chargeable to tax. Not satisfied, the I.T.O. issued a notice under section 148 read with Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed objections. Overruling all the objections, the Income Tax Officer completed reassessment of the assessee Firm adding back the sum of Rs. 1,58,057 to the previously assessed income. Having

GARDEN SILK WEAVING FACTORY, SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals for both the assessment years

gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH [INDIA] LTD.ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital reserves and certain borrowed moneys or a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, whichever is higher..." Section 4 is the charging Section. It says "subject to the provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged on every company for every assessment year commencing on and from the first day of April, 1964, a tax (in this Act referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MYSODET

capital of the company is throughout the previous year beneficially held by an institution or fund established in India for a charitable purpose the income from dividend whereof is exempt under section 11. (3) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification

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

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

144 silver bars found at premises no A 11 & 12 , Sector - VII, Noida and two silver bars found at premises of M/s Lunia & Co Delhi and in Civil Appeal Nos. 7689-90 of 2022 Page 5 of 27 sustaining addition of Rs.3,06,36,909/- being unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

144 ITR 585 (BOM.); C.I.T. v. Clour Chem Ltd., [1977] 106 ITR 323; C.I.T. v. Lucas-TVS Ltd., [1977] 110 ITR 346 (Mad.); Panyem Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Addl C.I.T., [1979] 117 ITR 770 (A.P.); C.I.T. v. Kalyani Spinning Mills Ltd., [1981] 128 ITR 279 (Cal.); C.I.T. v. Mec. Gaw Laboratories India

Rm. Ar., Ar. Rm. Ar. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

144 of 1960. Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) was a resident of Devakottai, Ramanathapuram District who owned extensive properties in- cluding properties in Ceylon. He married three wives viz., Valami Achi, Lakshimi Achi and Nachiar Achi. Valami Achi died in 1913 leaving behind her a son Arunachalam Chettiar (junior) and three daughters. Lakshimi Achi and Nachiar Achi did not have natural born

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

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

144 provides for best judgment assessment. It says that if any person fails to submit a return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 or fails to comply with the terms of a notice under sub- section (1) of Section 142 or having made a return fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section

SHRIMAND PADMARAJA R. KADAMBANDA, DHULIA vs. THE COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

section 14 that came up for consideration before this court in Rameshwara Rao’s case (1963) 49 ITR SC 144. Quite clearly the maintenance allowances paid were revenue receipts. Hence that decision has no bearing on the question of law under considera- tion in the present case. The observations made by this court in that decision must be read

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

144) ITR 357 53 High Court, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the same: ”32. The learned Judges observed at page 361: “The emphasis, therefore, in this statutory provision is that the tax under the section is in respect of ownership. But this matter is not as simple as it looks. This leaves us to a more vexed question