SH. SANJEEV LAL ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH&AN

capital gain can be availed only if a residential house i.e. a new asset is purchased within one year before or within two years after the date on which the transfer of the residential house/original asset takes place. In the instant case, the residential house had been transferred by the appellants-assessees on 24th September, 2004 whereas they had purchased

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

260] this Court held that both Section 26(2) and the proviso thereto dealt only   with   profits   and   gains   of   a   business, profession, or vocation and they did not provide for the assessment of income under any other head   e.g.   capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

gains under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 80- IB; or (vi) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility as defined as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80-IA and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in that

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. EQUINOX SOLUTION PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

capital gain” so as to attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act as was held by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (appeals) accordingly allowed the assessee to claim the deduction as was claimed by them before the Assessing Officer. 7) The Revenue, felt aggrieved of the order of the CIT (appeal), filed appeal before the Income

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital gain in the hands of the respondent-assessee as part of the full value of sale consideration paid for transfer of shares. This finding would clearly be in the teeth of Section 260

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

260(A) of the Act, and through the impugned judgment, the appeal at the instance of Revenue was allowed, resulting in restoring the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act. Hence, the appeal at the instance of the assessee. II. SUBMISSIONS BY PARTIES 3. Mr. V.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee, contends that the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

capital or revenue receipt. This additional issue has been raised in Civil Appeal No.9917 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) and also in Civil Appeal No.8983 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chhattisgarh Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) RECOMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION

M. JANARDHANA RAO vs. JT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs

capital gain’ before 1.4.2000. The questions were formulated by the High Court for adjudicating the appeals after the arguments were concluded for the purpose of rendering the judgment. No question was formulated when the appeals were admitted. With reference to Section 260A of the Act it is submitted that the prescriptions of the said Section were not kept in view

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

260- A of the Income tax Act (for short "the Act") before the High Court of Bombay, raising two questions of law. The High Court in its judgment has affirmed the Tribunal’s judgment by following its earlier decision in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (supra). This Court granted leave qua the question of law as reproduced

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

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

260. In the return, the respondent claimed a deduction of INR 21,63,436 towards expenses specifically incurred Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page 6 of 55 by the head office for the Indian branches. The respondent was asked to justify such a claim for deduction. 12. The respondent vide letter dated 16.03.2006 provided the following

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs. JOSEPH VALAKUZHY

260 of the Act in the High Court. The High Court framed the following substantial question of law in the said appeal for its consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amortization loss computed under Rule 9A is subject to or not subject to the provisions of section 80 and section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

260 Taxman 412 (Del.) 31 (2019) 261 Taxman 137 (Guj) 17 existing undertakings into one undertaking, the shareholders of each blending company become substantially the shareholders in the company which is to carry on the blended undertakings. There may be amalgamation either by the transfer of two or more undertakings to a new company, or by the transfer

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

capital. The allegation against the company is in relation to cash deposits of total 6 Rs.13,79,10,500/- soon after demonetization on 08.11.2016. The satisfaction note prepared by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1, Jalpaiguri was approved by Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit- 5, Kolkata and further approved by DGIT (Investigation), Kolkata on 07.08.2018. The High Court also quoted