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

capital gain tax under Section 45, we agree with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in coming to the conclusion that it is difficult to interpret Section 46(2) as including agricultural lands which is outside the scope of the Income Tax." Of the two questions referred to the High Court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1

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,MEERUT, ETC. ETC. vs. M/S VIRMANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ETC. ETC

Appeal is allowed accordingly

capital expenditure on scientific research, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 shall apply in relation to speculation business as they apply in relation to any other business." We may first consider the meaning of the expression "profits or gains chargeable". On first impression, the said expression appears to refer only to profits or gains of business

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. PELLETI SRIDERAMMA, NELLORE

The appeal is allowed, the

gain is not income arising from the assets, but it is income, which arises from a source which is different from the asset itself.....The object of the enactment of the section is to prevent avoidance of tax or reducing the incidence of tax on the part of the assessee by transfer of his assets to his wife or minor

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY vs. H. HOLCK LARSEN

1) of the Act of 1922 equivalent to section 256 of the Act of 1961 was lid ted to entertaining references involving questions of law. If the point raised on reference related to the construction of a document of title or to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the statute, it is a pure question

METTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TEX, MADRAS-1

Appeal is dismissed,

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in favour of the respondent. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the appellant was manufacturing coustic soda utilising billiter cells and up to the year 1956, its production capacity was 13.5 tons per day. The appellant felt the need to expand its capacity

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

capital gains. This contention was negatived by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, framed the following question for reference before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 256(1

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

M/S. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed, without any order as to costs

Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Madras High Court for answering, inter alia, the following question :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to Rule 3 of Schedule II of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 the share capital of the Company should be increased proportionately on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAMIL NADU vs. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN

256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 15595) of the income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the facts of the case and that the Developments rebate allowed for assessment years

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. G.R. KARTHIKEYAN, COIMBATORE

256 (1) of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the total sum of Rs. 22.000 received by the assessee from the Indian http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7 Oil Corporation and All India Highway Motor Rally

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