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

section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the High Court of the following questions of law : " 1. Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gains

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Section 256(1) the High Court answered the question against the revenue. The High Court by order dated October 25, 1983 answered the question in favour of the assessee relying on its earlier decision reported in C.I.T. v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., (150 I.T.R. 23) Civil Appeal No. 1404 of 1991 The Commissioner of Income Tax ....Appellant . I.D.L. Chemicals

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

capital assets, but not by the appellant-Corporation itself. Thus, a conclusion was reached that, in terms of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’) as it stood for the relevant assessment year, any expenditure (except of the prohibited type) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

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

capital of such co- operative society out of funds provided by the State Government for the purpose. Explanation.—If any dispute arises as to the primary object or principal business of any co- operative society referred to in clauses (cciv), (ccv) and (ccvi), a determination thereof by the Reserve Bank shall be final; (ccvii) “central co-operative bank”, “primary rural

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the Act). First question for which leave to appeal was granted by this Court is as under: - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Tribunal was right in holding

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 1, BOMBAY

In the result, Transferred Cases No

capital employed in the Flight Kitchen. It is the contention of Dr. Gouri Shanker, learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that the activity pertaining to the Flight Kitchen is not a hotel activity. The Flight Kitchen is a separate industrial undertaking which is engaged in manufacture or production of food packages on a http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MYSODET

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision of Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was applicable to the instant case for the assessment year 1975- 76?" The facts leading

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

256(2) of the Act following the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Deejay Hatcheries (211 I.T.R. 652) wherein it was held that the business of hatchery cannot be termed as an industrial undertaking producing articles or things. That is how both sets of appeals are before us. Respondents in these civil appeals and the appellant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAKARLAL BALABHAI & CO

The appeals are allowed

Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question formulated by the revenue in different cases are specified herein-below: C.A. No.3180/92 "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that while computing long term capital gains and sale of shares, the bonus shares ought have been valued at average cost

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the business of the assessee being one and indivisible, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses have

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW. vs. U.P. FOREST CORPORATION

Appeals are allowed

256 of the Income Tax Act, the respondent chose to file three writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal in respect to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1980-81 and order of the Assessing Authority for assessment year 1984-85 which had been made by it. These writ petitions were entertained

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ’the 1961 Act’). "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of section 44 of the Income Tax, 1961 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule to the said Act, the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition of the following

UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALCUTTA

In the result, we hold that both the High Courts were right in answering

Section 256(2) of the Act, the High Court directed the Tribunal to draw up statement of case and refer the aforementioned question to it. On February 6, 1992 the High Court answered the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, as noted above. Mr. M.L.Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed accordingly

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that Oxford University Press, Bombay, which is part of Oxford University, is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? The question was answered by the High Court in the negative