M/S FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD BANGALOARE vs. CIT BANGALORE

27) of the Act from Assessment Years 1964-65 to 1975- 76 became partially exempt by way of deduction on fulfilment of certain conditions.” (At para 12) 35. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are therefore of the view that on omission of Section 280ZA and its re-enactment with modification in Section 54G, Section 24 of the General Clauses

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 197 certification process, had concluded that the question of chargeability of capital gains and the identification of the beneficial owner, upon piercing the corporate veil, had already been determined. In light of the same, and in the absence of any change in factual circumstances, the CIT had urged the AAR to reject the applications made by the respondents

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital gains, once this Court has recognized that amalgamation entails a transfer, that conclusion cannot be ignored while considering the ambit of Section 28. 16.4. The real question, therefore, is whether an amalgamation – though, in company law, it operates as a statutory substitution of rights – nonetheless gives 36 rise to taxable business profits under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely: 26 (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto:” 18. Section

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

27. In the year 1975 by reason of Section 61 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) was deleted and four Explanations were inserted with effect from 01.04.1976. Section 271(c) reads as follows : "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

gains. Section 32A is one of the sections dealing with such deductions. Therefore, the income from poultry being outside the scope of total income by virtue of omitted Section 10(27) of the Act, there was no question for application of Sections 32A and 80J to them at least when we find that Section 80JJ was consciously simultaneously re-enacted

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NAVIN SARDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEERUT

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

27 receipts are taken into account. Even if the actual profits and gains of the assessee are more than 10%, only 10% is presumed to be its income. Thus, 10% is the income and the rest 90% is allowed as expenditure/allowable claims of the assessee. Assuming that Section 44BB was not on the statute book, assessee would have shown mobilisation

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains from: (1) Investments in (a) securities of the nature  referred  to   in  Section  8  of  the Indian Income Tax Act; or (b) property of the  nature   referred   to  in   Section   9  of that Act; (2) dividends, or      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 31 of 45 (3)   the   ‘other   sources’   referred   to   in Section

ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT V. PATEL

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue   alternatively   contended   that   the   case   of   the Respondent should come under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. Facts in M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7632/08] – CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASE: 22. The main issue which arises

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

gains an amount which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have accrued to the assessee or been received by him and it must be confined to cases where the actual consideration received for the transfer is understated and since in such cases it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine and prove the exact quantum

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

27,15,688/- (Rupees Eight Crores Twenty-Seven Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty- Eight). The said turnover included an amount of Rs. 26,62,927/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Seven) being gains on accounts of foreign currency fluctuations in the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee treated the said earning from

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

Capital gains”. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge. Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by Section 45 must fall under

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

gains of business or profession’ subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) if the expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Sections 30 to 36 of the Act; (ii) if the expenditure has been incurred in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration; 22 (iii) it should be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

27,636/- on account of receipts under the Duty Drawback. 2.2 The assessee credited the receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account and claimed the same as “Profit / gains of business / profession” under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act, 1961. The assessee was issued a notice under Section

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

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

27,93,977.00 and claim of bad debt = Rs. 68,02,046.00 have been deducted by the Assessing Authority, indicating that he agrees with the Assessee’s claim. The Assessing Authority does not seem to have taken account of two other items (Capital gains = Rs. 4,00,000.00 and Rule 6D disallowance = Rs. 31,963). We are, therefore, unable

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

gains as are reasonably attributable to that part of the operations carried out in the taxable territories. Thus comes in the question of apportionment under sub-section (3) of Section 42." In CIT v. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building Co. Ltd. [259 ITR 248], on which reliance was placed; the contention was that the finding that the contract for designing