COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

32 and sub-section (1) of section 32A, the following particulars shall be furnished in a columnar form, namely: - (i) description of assets in respect of building, indicate whether the building is taken on lease or is owned by the assessee; (ii) written down value of existing assets; (iii) actual cost of assets acquired during the previous year; (iv) capital

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

iii) any payment which is chargeable under the head "Salaries", if it is payable- (A) outside India; or (B) to a non-resident, and if the tax has not been paid thereon nor deducted therefrom under Chapter XVII-B;” Deduction at source and advance payment.- “Section 190: (1) Notwithstanding that the regular assessment in respect of any income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

capital which the assessee has borrowed. Further, the words "actual cost" do not find place in Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act which otherwise find place in Sections 32, 32A etc of the 1961 Act. The expression "actual cost" is defined in Section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which is essentially a definition section which is subject

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.

iii) in any other case, the 30th day of June of the assessment year. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or under the head “Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should

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

iii) Khopoli area. (iv) Areas within the limits of- (a)Nagpur Municipal Corporation. (b)Sholapur Municipal Corporation. 8. Section 54G of the Income Tax Act inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1.4.1988 reads as follows: “54G. Exemption of capital gains on transfer of assets in cases of shifting of industrial undertaking from urban area. (1) Subject

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

32,55,640 TOTAL INCOME (I + II + III + IV) Rs. 13,78,40,987 TOTAL INCOME EXCLUDING LONGTERM CAPITAL-GAINS Rs. 2,15,90,743” 12) As can be gathered from the above, the total proceeds of 92 crores are ₹ Page 11 JUDGMENT 11 first apportioned among the assessees in the ratio in which they had received the said amount

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

iii) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act was held to be squarely applicable, and the applications filed by the assessees were rejected. (B) HIGH COURT 6.11. On the preliminary objections raised by the Revenue, the High Court found that the Commissioner of Income Tax13, after referring to a detailed examination conducted by the Department during

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

32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression “expenditure” as used in Section 37 may, in 11 the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. 14. In the case

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

The appeal is allowed

32. Let us also assume that later part of clause (c) of Section 271(1) did not invite any investigation into whether it was done deliberately or willfully or not; but let us leave final consideration of this nicety of application thereof in a more appropriate case and apply the element of deliberation in the fact of the present case

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

32,97,22,383, still required the assess to pay a sum of Rs.38,60,075. If the interpretation sought to be put by the Department is correct, then there would be a lot of force in the contention of Shri Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that such a provision would be clearly arbitrary and may even have

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

iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law …” Section 28 — Profits and gains of business or profession “The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. (4) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section. Tax credit

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

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

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

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

capital gains as required under section 71. Be that as it may, I have no hesitation in saying that if it were a pure question of law capable of being adjudged on the material on record, the Tribunal was under a statutory obligation to entertain and decide the same. I, however, think that, on the admitted facts, the petitioner

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

32 appellant company has no nexus with the actual amount incurred by the appellant company for transportation of the Drilling Unit/Rigs to the specified drilling location in India. Even if the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant company would have been substantially less, ONGC was liable to pay the fixed amount of mobilisation fee stipulated in the respective Agreements