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

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

37(1)Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of 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

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

gains in case of 36 non-resident assessee engaged in activities relating to business of exploration of mineral oil etc. At the same time Sections 4,5 and 9 of the Act which deal with charging section, total income and income of non-resident which arises or deem to arise in India cannot be sidetracked. These are the provisions which

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital gains tax. Reliance was placed on Vodafone, particularly its 16 For short, “OECD” 17 For short, "POEM” 32 recognition of Judicial Anti-Avoidance Rules and the distinction between “influencing power” and “persuasive power”. 7.9. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that Circular No. 789 was a policy measure intended to provide certainty to FIIs and similarly placed investors

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

37 : “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of 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

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

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

2(13) of the Act gives a broad definition to ‘business’. Section 28 of the Act comes under the heading ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’. Various types of income enumerated thereunder are made chargeable to income tax. The income, as referred in Section 28 of the Act, has to be computed in the manner as prescribed under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital in nature, but is laid out or spent exclusively for the purpose of business, under Section 37 of the Act. A similar provision existed under the old Income Tax Act, 1922 as in the case of provision for bad debts, by Section 10(2)11. This aspect was considered 10 [1963] Supp (1) SCR 776. 11 Section 10(2

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

2(47)(vi) appears to be to bring within the tax net a de facto transfer of any immovable property. The expression “enabling the enjoyment of” takes color from the earlier expression “transferring”, so that it is clear that any transaction which enables the enjoyment of immovable property must be enjoyment as a purported owner thereof.1 The idea

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

37 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Learned counsel next contended that under Section 204(i), the person responsible for paying would cover either the employer himself or if the employer is a company the company itself including its principal officer. According to the learned counsel, the definition contemplates two situations – where the branch is the person responsible, it acts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

2) Where the depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause (ii) of sub- section (4) of section 37 or sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of section 40 or sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub- section (5) of section 40A, such depreciation shall be excluded for the purposes of sub-rule

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

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

capital expenditure or personal expenditure, shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”. Therefore, it is clear that there is no restriction under Section 37(1) of the Act that, for an expenditure to be deductible under it, it must be incurred in India. b) This position

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

gains of the previous year either under Section 28 or under Section 37 of the 1961 Act. However, the above principle would not apply after insertion of Section 40A(7) w.e.f. 1.4.73. It may be stated that the principles of commercial accounting, mentioned above, formed the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Metal Box Company

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

2) Bill, 1998, Section 15. Later adopted by CBDT Circular No. 772 ([1999] 235 ITR (St.) 35, 53), dated 23.12.1998. 5 which it could be inferred that the intention of the Parliament was to only bring into the ambit of Explanation 1 ‘illegal’ activities which were deigned as ‘offences’ under relevant statutes. The IT Act not being a social reform

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

2(24) of the IT Act and added back while computing profits and gains of business under Sections 28 to 43D of the IT Act. In reply, the Department contended before us that the IT Act is a separate code by itself; that the taxable total income has to be computed strictly in terms of the provisions

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

37 provides that any expenditure which is not covered by Sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall  be allowed for  computing  the income   chargeable   under   the   head   “profits   and   gains   of business or profession”. Section

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

37 of the Act, more particularly to sub-section (1) thereof, and submits that any expenditure of an assessee may be allowed as a deduction while computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) if the expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Sections