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

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,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

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

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 of Rs. 7,45,109 could not be considered for purposes of computing the distributable income

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, MADRAS vs. G.R. KARTHIKEYAN, COIMBATORE

capital gain. Reference may be made to- ’Eisner v. Macomber’, [1919] 252 US 189 (K); -’Merchants’ Loan and Trust Co. v. ’Smietanka’[1920] 255 US 509 ( L) and -’United States of America v. Stewart’, [1940] 311 US 60(M) and-’Resch v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation’, [1943] 66 CLR 198 (N). In each of these cases very wide meaning

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) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the heirloom jewellery constituted ’personal effects’ within the meaning of Section 2

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. 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

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

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

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

In the result, Transferred Cases No

256(2) of the Act was filed before the High Court of Kerala which was rejected by order dated 7.1.1985. That order is challenged in this appeal. S.L.P.(C) No. 324/1997 Leave granted. In this appeal also, the assessee Hotel Shashi Private Ltd., a company engaged in the business of running a hotel named the Valley View Resort situated

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

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

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

2) The said company had ever since its inception expanding its business and asking good profits. (3) Its capital had increased and, therefore, right shares were offered to the existing shareholders. (4) The assessee had a substantial holding of equity shares in the company. (5) It was not obligatory on the assessee to acquire right shares. (6) In fact

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

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