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

5 Page 6 JUDGMENT done, it is not necessary for the assessee to deposit before furnishing such return, the amount in a Capital Gain Deposit Scheme and utilize such proceeds in accordance with the scheme which the Central Government may by notification frame in this behalf. His further contention was that in any case the explanation added to Section

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

D India Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax5 (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Associated Electronics & Electricals Industries (Bangalore) (P) Ltd.6 (b) Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, his other submission was that if at all the capital gain tax was payable, liability to pay the same was that of the partnership firm and not the individual

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

17 investments made before 01.04.2017 were grandfathered and not subject to capital gains tax in India. Thus, even under the amended DTAA between India and Mauritius, what was not taxable was capital gains arising from the sale of shares of a company resident in India. 6.7. Therefore, the AAR found that exemption from capital gains tax on the sale

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

17) After arguing that the provisions have to be read in the aforesaid manner, proposition advanced by the learned senior counsel is that Section 44BB of the Act is only a computation provision and does not override Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. For this purpose, he referred to the judgment of this Court in Union of India

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

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

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

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains tax has already been paid on that and sale deeds have also been executed. In view of cancellation of JDA dated 25.02.2007, no further amount has been received and no action thereon has been taken. It was urged that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

5 8. However, the ITAT reversed the order passed by the CIT(A) and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee observing that the decision of this Court in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The relevant observations from the order of the ITAT order are extracted hereinbelow: “6. [...] In the present

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

5 8)  Per   contra,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the Respondent   submitted   that   the   amount   received   by   the Respondent   from   redemption   of   Stock   Appreciation   Rights (SARs) can be treated only as capital gains and cannot be treated as perquisite under Section 17(2) (iii) of the IT Act or under Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act. However

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

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

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in 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

D of Chapter IV dealing with ‘profits and gains from business or profession’. Section 29 of the Act, in this behalf, specifically stipulates that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. In this hue, he argued, when it comes to claiming depreciation, Section 32 of the Act gets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

d) extra-shift allowance double shift and triple shift; (xii) total depreciation; (xiii) investment allowance claimed (also indicate rate); (xiv) remarks (indicate the amount of initial depreciation, investment allowance or development rebate allowed in respect of the assets in an earlier year). (2) Where the depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

D G M E N T     R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.    1. Leave granted. 2.   These appeals are preferred, by the State­owned Undertaking, Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd., a 1 Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.01.03 16:37:04 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. company registered under the Companies

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and ending with the assessment year during which the entire net worth of such company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulated losses. 7 Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “net worth” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ga) of sub-section

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

The appeal is allowed

5 of 26 at Rs.1,44,92,907/- as per the report of the Dist. Valuation Officer-II, Mumbai. Accordingly, the Long Term Capital Gain is worked out as under : Less: Cost of acquisition as on 1.4.81 as per the Dept. Valuer’s report as discussed is Rs. 1,44,92,907 Indexed cost

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

D’ is of income from “profits   and   gains   of   business   or   profession”   covered   by Section 28 of the IT Act.  Profits and gains from any business or profession that the assessee carried out at any time during the   previous   year   are   chargeable   to   income   tax.     Under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the amount

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

d), with which we are concerned, does not refer to the mode of payment, unlike Proviso 2 to the said Section, which was omitted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004. The said Proviso reads as follows: "Provided further that no deduction shall, in respect of any sum referred to in clause (b), be allowed unless such

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section