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 FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD BANGALOARE vs. CIT BANGALORE

II) shows that Section 10(2)(xi) of the 1922 Act is equivalent to Sections 36(1)(vii), 36(2) and 41(4) of the 1961 Act. The repealed Section 10(2)(xi) is thus a composite section containing the ingredients of the re-enacted Sections 36(1)(vii), 36(2) and 41(4). Consequently when a debt is written

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ii) Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (iii) Areva T & D India Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax5 (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Associated Electronics & Electricals Industries (Bangalore) (P) Ltd.6 (b) Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, his other submission was that if at all the capital gain tax was payable, liability to pay the same was that

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

35 to Rs. 32 per dollar, then the assessee’s liability would stand reduced by Rs. 300 and there would be a gain of Rs. 300 which would become taxable. From this hypothetical example, learned counsel urged that the liability stood incurred on the date on which the assessee borrows 100 $ which in the above example is 1.4.1999, however

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

II Holdings, Mauritius. Certificate dated 17.08.2018 mentioning the rate of income tax @ 6.05% Tiger Global International III Holdings, Mauritius. Certificate dated 17.08.2018 mentioning the rate of income tax @ 6.92% Tiger Global International IV Holdings, Mauritius. Certificate dated 17.08.2018 mentioning the rate of income tax @ 8.47% 5.7. Hence, the assessees approached the Authority for Advance Rulings10 by filing applications under Section

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

ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or (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

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obviously, the finding of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars cannot be faulted..." 16. Mr. Anil B. Dewan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

gains of business or profession" and Section 29 mandates that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43A. That being the law, Income- tax Officer was bound to allow depreciation whether the assessee chooses to claim the same or not. To arrive at the profit, depreciation

NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

35, read with clause (4) of section 43 owned by the assessee which was or has been used for the purposes of business after it ceased to be used for the purpose of scientific research related to the business is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed, the provisions of this sub-section shall apply as if for the words “actual cost

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

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

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

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

35 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRIKRISHNA, J. The assessee is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and carrying on business in agricultural activities and dairy farming. The assessee was subjected to levy of income-tax under section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) for the assessment years

SHRIMAND PADMARAJA R. KADAMBANDA, DHULIA vs. THE COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 15. These constitute different clauses as has already been pointed out by us. The fact that the assessee has applied for a grant for maintenance nor again, the periodicity of payment, would be conclusive as we will demonstrate a little later. Now, we come to the observation at page

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

ii) offshore services, (iii) onshore supply, (iv) onshore services and (v) construction and erection. The price was payable for offshore supply and offshore services in US dollars, whereas that of onshore supply as also onshore services and construction and erection partly in US dollars and partly in Indian rupees. 36) The High Court noted that while determining the tax liability

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

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

35,05,750 shares to 10,000 shares. Consequently, the share of the assessee was reduced proportionately from 15,33,40,900 shares to 9,988 shares. However, the face value of shares remained the same at Rs. 10 even after the reduction in the share capital. The High Court also directed the company for payment

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

II …Respondent O R D E R S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Leave granted. The appellant (hereinafter, “Apex”) is aggrieved by a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras1, wherein the Division Bench upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 (hereinafter, “ITAT”), which in turn upheld an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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