VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (C) No.....CC 9101 and 10193 of 2014. 2) Leave granted. 3) All these appeals (except Civil Appeal No. 1245 of 2012 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No....CC Nos. 9101 and 10193 of 2014 and SLP (C) No. 14812 of 2014, which are filed

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

E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The assessee, a private limited company, had an industrial unit at Majiwada, Thane, which was a notified urban area. With a view to shift its industrial undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area at Kurukumbh Village, Pune District, Maharashtra, it sold its land, building and plant and machinery situated

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

E N T RUMA PAL, J. The question to be decided in these appeals is whether the word ’assets’ in Section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereafter as the ’Act’) must be understood and construed according to the definition of the word ’capital assets’ in Section 2(14) of the Act. The issue arises

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

e) Reimbursement of actual expenditure, which was the obligation of the operator/company cannot be included in receipts under Section 44BB of the Act as the income tax is levied on income. Further, the fact of such reimbursements being devoid of any profit element has not been disputed by the Revenue. 21) Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant

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

2(47) is relevant only for the purpose of computing capital gains and has no application to stock-in-trade. Only the exploitation or realisation of stock-in-trade gives rise 7 (2020) 425 ITR 420 (SC) 8 to business income, which is to be computed strictly in accordance with Section 28 of the I.T. Act. 4.2. Reliance was placed

NATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VIII

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

gain-saying the fact that the H.U.F. was not the shareholder of the company. Mr. Sen did not contend otherwise. 9. Section 2 (6A)(e) gives an artificial definition of “dividend”. It does not take in dividend actually declared or received. The dividend taken note of by that provision is a deemed dividend and not a real dividend. The loan

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

22) RF 1977 SC 560 (11) RF 1988 SC1453 (33) ACT: Income Tax Act 1922-Sec. 2(1), 2(4A), 2(6C), 2(3)(8) find 2(6A) C. Income Tax Rules 1922-Rules 23 and 24-Dividends- Accumulated profits-Composite business activity including agricultural and non-agricultural-Excess over book value on land account-Profit and loss account-General

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

E N T R. MAHADEVAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from a final judgment and common order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 in W.P. (C) Nos. 6764, 6765 and 6766 of 2020 and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of clarity

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

gains attributable to such activities as does not exceed,— 17 (i) where such co-operative society is a consumers’ co-operative society, one hundred thousand rupees; and (ii) in any other case, fifty thousand rupees. Explanation.—In this clause, “consumers’ co-operative society” means a society for the benefit of the consumers; (d) in respect of any income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MYSODET

22) of the Act, it should be construed that this definition would be applicable to all provisions which contain the term "dividend" in the Act. Section 104 of the Act reads as under : "104. Income-tax on undistributed income of certain companies. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of sections 105, 106 107 and 107A, where

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

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

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

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

E, 54-F and 54-G, be chargeable to income tax under the head ‘Capital gains’ and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” 11. Section 2(47) which is an inclusive definition, inter alia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right therein amounts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MEERUT, ETC. ETC. vs. M/S VIRMANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ETC. ETC

Appeal is allowed accordingly

E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. A common question arises in these three appeals. It relates to the meaning and interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Income-Tax Act. I would be enough if we state the facts in Civil Appeal No.1052 of 1976. The respondent-assessee, Virmani Industries Private Limited, was engaged

P.K. BADIANI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961--hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act, read with Explanation II thereto. It was found that the aggregate amount of develop- ment rebate allowed to the Company under section 10(2)(vi-b) was Rs. 2,36,470/-. The said amount had been debited in the profit and loss account of the Company

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 should “arise” from the transfer of a capital asset and income should be computed after full value of the consideration has been received or accrued. Since no income was received or had accrued, as the project was finally terminated by the owners on 15 13.06.2011, it was clear that the High Court judgment was correct. Further, sub-clause

VANIA SILK MILLS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the’ appeal succeeds and the impugned

22 JT 1991 (3) 394 1991 SCALE (2)327 ACT: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss. 2(47), 41(2),45--Capital asset--Destruction of--Money received as insurance claim--Nature of Whether chargeable to capital gains tax. HEADNOTE: The appellant company purchased machinery worth Rs.2,81,741 in the year 1957 and gave it on hire to another company which

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

E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In this batch of civil appeals, the question which arises for determination is – whether TDS provisions in Chapter XVII-B, which are in the nature of machinery provisions to enable collection and recovery of taxes, are independent of the charging provisions which determines the assessability of income chargeable