N. BAGAVATHY AMMAL vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI

148. The contention of the appellants that in terms of the definition of ’assets’ in Section 2(14), agricultural lands were entitled to be excluded while computing capital gains

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

gain arising from the transfer of such land would not constitute capital under the Act and consequently would not be liable to be taxed as such. [155H, 156 A-D, 157 B-D] JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1491 and 1693 of 1971. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 13th January

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

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

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

148 of the Act for the assessment years 1990 – 1991, 1991 – 1992 and 1992 – 1993. He submits that the basis for reassessment was purportedly comparison of the current and capital accounts of the partners of the assessee firm in the balance sheet filed along with the return for the assessment year 1993 – 1994 with the capital and current accounts

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

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

148 of the Act had CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 20 of 67 no territorial jurisdiction. That the proper course for the Department was to have the matter entrusted to ACIT, Gangtok after complying with the mandate of section 127 of the Act for transferring jurisdiction of ACIT, Gangtok to New Delhi. It is submitted that though the Revenue

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

capital assets in ques- tion during the previous years. Under section 10 of the 1922 Act an assessee is liable to pay tax under the head "Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation, carried on by him". Such profits or gains shall be computed after making a number of allowances. Those allowances included the allowances provided by section

SHEKHAWATI GENERAL TRADERS LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE I, JAIPUR

The appeals are allowed and the

Sections 147 and 55 and its scope. HEADNOTE: In 1949, the assessee company had acquired some ordinary shares of a company of the face value of Rs. 10/- each. On this holding the assessee had received certain bonus shares. The assessee further acquired a certain number of right shares of the same company in 1961. During the assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL vs. H.H. MAHARANI USHA DEVI

gains shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The term ’Capital asset’ has been defined in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3 Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. Section 2(14), as it stood at the relevant time, was as follows: Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

Capital gains. Various sections deal with how income, profits and gains under each http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21 head have to be computed. Section 10 deals with the computation of profits and gains of any business carried on by an assessee. Section 10(2) prescribes the allowances which have to be deducted before computing

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Gains (LTCG) in the shares of Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited (now known as Yantra Natural Resources Limited) from Shirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) through Pradip Birewar. Pradip Birewar is an Ahmedabad based accommodation entry provider who is facilitating one time and other accommodation entries including LTCG entries to various clients on receipt of cash. He is facilitating these entries through bigger

CHALLAPALLI SUGAR LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P. HYDERABAD

Gains of business, profession or Vocation" or "Income from other sources". The serving clause contained in section 5 of the amending Act provided "Where, before the 15th day of July, 1972 being the date on which the Income-tax http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14 (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 came into force, the Supreme Court

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

K.M. SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(7),NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on the amount awarded on year to year basis. 4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17.9.1993 informing the ITO that he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829/- and interest accrued from year to year was assessable in each year. Year-wise break

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

gained substantial commercial advantage by the purchase of shares in CDBL as the turnover increased from INR 9.79 crores in the accounting period ending 31.03.1991 to INR 45.17 crores in the accounting period ending 31.03.1997 is again neither here nor there. As a matter of fact, the SWC 24 group, due to its own advertisement and marketing efforts, may well

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. CH. ATCHAIAH

The appeal is allowed

capital gain. Sri Kondal Reddy was also taxed in the same manner for both the said assessment years. On February 18, 1972 the Income Tax Officer issued a notice to both the respondent and Kondal Reddy under Section 148

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

148, he shall be punishable,- (i) in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page