COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DELHI vs. HARPRASAD & CO. (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal is accepted with costs

28,662/- which had been held to be a "capital loss" by the authorities below, should be allowed to be carried forward and set off against profits and gains, if any, under the head "capital gains" earned in future, as laid down in sub-sections

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains under Section 45 of the Act are not income accruing from day to day. It is deemed income which arises at a fixed point of time, viz. on the date of transfer. 28

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

28. Secondly, we find no reference to Section 6A of the General Clauses Act in either of these Constitution Bench judgments. Section 6A reads as follows: “6A. Repeal of Act making textual amendment in Act or Regulation - Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central

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, MADRAS vs. M/S. MADURAI MILLS CO. LIMITED

capital gains as contemplated by section 12B of the Act in respect of the amount of Rs. 95,944/- [667D] (ii) If the language of subsection (1) of section 12B of the Act is clear and does not warrant the inference that distribution of assets on liquidation of a company constitutes sale, transfer or exchange the said transaction of distribution

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

28 of the IT Act.  Profits and gains from any business or profession that the assessee carried out at any time during the   previous   year   are   chargeable   to   income   tax.     Under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head “Capital gains”, as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand. ...12/- 12 - COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD “CAPITAL GAINS As per assessee

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

capital asset situated 38 in India (referred as business income). Explanation 1(a) to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act provides an exclusion in the case of operations which are not carried out in India. The explanation provides that the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only that part

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

gains of business or profession, how computed: Section 29: “The income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D.” General: Section 37 : “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital

JAMES ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR OFTHE ESTATE OF THELATE HENR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY

28 I.T.R. 914 and Gowri Tile Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, (1957) 31 I.T.R. 250, referred to. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1954. N.A. Palkhivala, S. N. Andley

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

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

capital gains as envisaged under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant observations made by the High Court are reproduced hereinbelow: 28

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Nor is it exempt as a capital receipt being non- compete fee, as it is taxable as a capital gain

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

The appeal is allowed

28,478 Less Expenses incurred in relation to sale of property : Solicitor’s fees : Rs.2,50,000 Brokerage : Rs.8,00,000 -------------- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS Rs. 10,50,000 ------------------- Rs.3,09,78,478 =========== The claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs.22,200/- being expenses incurred on account of fees paid to Uday Chande is not admissible as it cannot

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

28,328 " conversion " shares of the Dharamsi Company at Rs. 500 per share together with the managing agency, and also 75,212 " conversion " shares of the Shapurji Broacha Company, together with the managing agency. We are not concerned with the other details mentioned in the two letters, except this that the Dalmia Company made it clear that it would purchase

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

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

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28

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 and cannot be treated as perquisite under Section 17(2) (iii) of the IT Act or under Section 28

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

gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. 28

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

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

capital receipts or revenue receipts and would these be taxable. That to put an end to the uncertainty, the legislature by way of inserting clauses (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) in Section 28 has made the said incentives taxable under the head of profits and gains