COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

27 deduct or pay as aforesaid. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.” Penalty not to be imposed in Certain Cases: Section 273B: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

C) Nos.3655- 3658 of 2005 which were disposed of by this Court directing the trial court to dispose of the petition for discharge within a period of two months by its order dated 03.03.2006. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the petitions vide its order dated 14.06.2006. Though the High Court affirmed the said order vide its judgment dated 02.12.2006, these

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

c) shifted the original asset and transferred the establishment of such undertaking to such area; and (d) incurred expenses on such other purpose as may be specified in a scheme framed by the Central Government for the purposes of this section, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

capital goods and plant and machinery if he claims depreciation on the said tax component under the Income Tax Act. The object is that a registered person does not take advantage of both depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C defines 'slump sale' and reads as under: “ “slump sale” means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets and liabilities in such sales. Explanation 1. – For the purposes of this clause, “undertaking” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation

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

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/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

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’, Section 37 of the Act enables 44 the deduction of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession, as the case may be. The fact that an item of expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business by itself is not sufficient

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would become taxable income which is not the intention of Section 45Q of the IT Act. That, the said 1998 Directions cannot be taken as an excuse by the NBFC to compute lower taxable income under

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares were issued then, balance amount will be treated as distribution of income to shareholder

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

R & B FALCON (A) PTY LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed to the above extent

capitalized or not. However, the same expenditure will not be liable to FBT again in the year in which it is amortized and charged to profit. Is FBT payable by an Indian Company having employees based both in and outside India on its total (global) expenditure incurred by it for the purposes referred to in clauses

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

The appeal is allowed in part and to

c)(b) of the Act." In Carborandum Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [(1977) 108 ITR 335 : (1977) 2 SCC 862], this Court referring to its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab v. R..D. Aggarwal and Co.& Another [(1965) 56 ITR 20], opined : "15. On a plain reading of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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

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

capital expenditure or personal expenditure, shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”. Therefore, it is clear that there is no restriction under Section 37(1) of the Act that, for an expenditure to be deductible under it, it must be incurred in India. b) This position

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

c) of the Act came to be confirmed by both the CIT (A) and the ITAT. Accordingly, the assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the Penalty order, before the High Court. The High Court while deciding both the cases together, qua the first question, decided in favour of the Revenue and the rental premises

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

c) The charges were reimbursed for services rendered outside India. Services rendered outside India cannot be chargeable to tax under the Act. There should be sufficient territorial nexus between the rendering of services and the territorial limits of the Act to make the income taxable. (d) Where the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee for the mobilization of the rigs