THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

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

2 of 20 “Paville House” was sold to discharge encumbrances from the sale proceeds to pay off the shareholders and therefore, the said discharge of encumbrances was “cost of improvement”. As observed hereinabove, “Paville House” was sold for an amount of Rs.33 Crores. The assessee showed gains arising therefrom amounting to Rs.1,21,16,695/- as “long term capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

263 of the IT Act and interfered with the assessment orders. The CIT held that the appellant was not entitled to the deduction of the      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 4 of 45 interest paid by it for the broken period.  The Commissioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of  Vijaya Bank

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI vs. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD

Capital Gains and (v) Income from Other Sources. Thereafter, manner of computation of the income under the aforesaid heads is stipulated in various sections falling under Chapter IV. As far as Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession is concerned, Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act contain the procedure for computation of income under this head. Therefore

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs. JOSEPH VALAKUZHY

263 of the Act, set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the benefit of carry forward granted to the Assessee on the ground that, as the provisions of Section 80 of the Act are applicable, the benefit of carry forward of the expenses was not admissible to the assessee as the assessee had failed to file

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

The appeal is partly allowed

263. Reassessment by the I.T.O. disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15,50,526. On appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256(1) the High Court

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

2 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. 25.09.2018, the appellant herein filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.536/Coch/2018. 4. With   respect   to   Assessment   Year   2015­2016   assessment against the appellant was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the   Assistant   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,   Circle­1(1), Thiruvananthapuram   vide   order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 vs. M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in law. 4 8. The order passed by the ITAT was challenged before the Delhi High Court by preferring an Income Tax Appeal, which has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment holding that as per the relevant terms of the DTAA between India