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

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

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

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

36.(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in Section 28- (iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession. Explanation : Recurring subscriptions paid periodically by share-holders, or subscribers

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

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’ referred to in Section 28 of the Act. Section 36(1)(iii) says that the deductions provided for the amount of interest paid in respect of capital

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

36. This Section, according to the learned Author, covers cases of business expenditure only, and not of business losses which are, however, deductible on ordinary principles of commercial accounting. (see page 617 of the eighth edition). It is this principle which attracts the provisions of Section 145. That section recognizes the rights of a trader to adopt either the cash

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital appreciation and investment income. The assessees are regulated by the Financial Services Commission3 in Mauritius and have been granted a Category I Global Business License4 under Section 72(6) of the Financial Services Act, 2007, enacted by the Parliament of Mauritius. 5.1. The business of the assessees, according to them, is wholly controlled and managed by their Board

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

The appeal is allowed

36. The question, however, in a case of this nature, would be whether it was a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction was properly exercised or not. 37. The legal history of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act traced from the 1922 Act prima facie shows that explanations were applicable to both the parts. However, each case must be considered

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

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

1)(c)(iii)? ii. What is meant by the term "total income" in Explanation 4(a)? Both these questions are fully answered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., 40 ITR 142 (SC). Under the Finance Act, 1951, a provision was enacted to discourage the declaration of dividend disproportionate

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

III. Analysis and Findings A. Re: Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the objective of the 1995 Finance Act amendment. 9. The relevant statutory provision, Section 36(1)(viii) allows for a specific deduction in computing the income referred to in Section 28. The section provides a deduction in respect of any financial corporation engaged

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOW vs. BAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD

In the result the appeals are allowed, the impugned

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7 provides that in computing the income chargeable under the head ’profits and gains of business or profession’ a deduc- tion shall be allowed of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital

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

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

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

36,53,453 out of the total distributable assets of TT Co. During the relevant accounting period the assessee received Rs. 52,23,786 and Rs. 34,15,500 (in all Rs. 86,39,286) from the liquidators of DDT Co. and TT Co. respectively. On behalf of the assessee company, it was urged before the lncome-tax officer that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL III, CALCUTTA vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY, CALCUTTA ETC

36 ITR 329; Chhail Beharilal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 39 ITR 696; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dr. Fida Hussain G. Abbasi, 71 ITR 314; M. N. Ramaswamy Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 71 ITR 218; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gopal Chand Patnaik, 111 ITR 86 approved. Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income

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

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 149: "We think