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

SRI T. ASHOK PAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act may not be attracted. (2) The revised return having been accepted by the Department and the penalty having not been imposed with reference to the original return filed by assessee, he cannot be considered to be guilty of concealment of income. (3) The fault, if any, was with his tax counsel

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

capital expenditure, the same would be entitled for depreciation. ITAT, therefore, directed the assessing officer to allow the claim of depreciation on the amount of non-compete fee paid treating the same as intangible asset. 10.7. Assailing the aforesaid finding of the ITAT, revenue preferred appeal before the Bombay High Court being Income 18 Tax Appeal No.556

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-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.

271(1)(a) had been Page 19 JUDGMENT 19 deleted w.e.f. 01.04.1989 and a provision for levy of mandatory/compulsory interest under Section 234A of the Act was introduced. But, legislature has never waived or relaxed its prosecuting provisions under Section 276CC of the Act for the infraction or non-furnishing of return of income. 18. Section

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

271 of the Act is CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 32 of 67 concerned, the same is discretionary, however the interest is not discretionary. Therefore, for imposing penalty, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, however in case of interest, the same being mandatory in nature and automatic there is no requirement of following principles of natural justice

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

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

271 (i) (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

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

271(1)(a) of the Act, could not further be prosecuted for the same defaults. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the High Court was justified in its conclusions in dismissing the writ petitions. The decision in Kullu Valley’s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case and in fact

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

capital is held by the en­ tity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv)  a company or corporation in which the State Gov­ ernment has the right to appoint the majority of the   directors   or   to   control   the   management   or policy decisions, directly or indirectly, including by   virtue   of   its   shareholding   or   management

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with