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

In the result, the appeal is accepted with costs

4(1)." Secondly, it must be "computed in the manner laid down in die Act". If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the "total income" that can be brought to charge. Now, capital gains would be covered by the definition of ’income’ in sub-section

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of Section 72, or sub-section (2) of Section 73, or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of Section 74, or sub- section (3) of Section 74A, he may furnish within the time allowed under sub-section (1

TURNER MORRISON & CO., LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,.WEST BENGAL

capital asset in India. All these incomes by virtue of this section have to be deemed to be income accruing or arising within India and where the person entitled to such income, profits :or gains is a non-resident such income, profits and gains are made chargeable to income-tax either in his name or in the name

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.

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

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

1) of Section 54G. However, if it fails to acquire the plant and machinery before one year of transfer or within the period of filing return, it is supposed to deposit the capital gains in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme. It cannot be said that giving advance to different concerns means utilization of money for acquiring the assets. Therefore

M.S.P. NADAR SONS, VIRUDHU NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), MADRAS

1,81,671.00 The Income-tax Officer did not agree with said mode of computation. He set off the long-term capital loss against the long-term capital gain in the first instance and then applied the deductions provided by section 80-T to the balance figure of Rs. 4

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

gains arising to the assessees from the transfer may not be deemed to accrue / arise in India in light of Section 9 of the ITA. According to the learned Senior Counsel, a plain reading of Section 90 establishes that the only requirement that needs to be satisfied in respect of treaty eligibility under Section 90(2) is the satisfaction

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

capital gain of Rs. 9021/- in the case of Calicut property and Rs. 1,46,320/- in the case of Mangalore buildings. On appeal filed by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income Tax Officer. He was also of the view that the assessee did not have the right to substitute value as on January 1

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 45(4), which reads as under: “45. Capital gains. – (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

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

1. Whether shares received by the assesses on amalgamation are entitled to the benefit of section 47(vii) without the Tribunal concluding that the said shares were held by the assesses as capital assets? 2. Whether the benefit of Section 47(vii) is limited to determination of capital gains and only in regard to capital assets? 3. Whether income would

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

gains under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 80- IB; or (vi) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility as defined as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80-IA and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in that

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

4 of 7 arising after March 31, 1946. The tax on capital gains was virtually abolished by the Indian Finance Act, 1949 which confined the operation of that section to capital gains arising before April 1

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains. The amount of tax sought to be evaded is worked out as per clause (a) to Explanation 4 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act at 20% of Rs.3,43,90,478 i.e. Rs.68,78,095. Accordingly, a minimum penalty of Rs.68,78,095 is levied under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. PVT. LTD., PATIALA

capital employed during the previous year (such amount, in either case, being hereafter, in this section referred to as deficiency) shall be carried forward and set off against the profits and gains referred to in sub-section (1) [as computed after allowing the deductions, if any, admissible under section 80 HH and the said sub-section (1)] in respect

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

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

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

capital gains could not be levied because under section 48 (ii) required computing the gain by deducting from the full value of the consideration received. Applying Elphinstone case to the present case, it can be held: - a. "Total income" can only connote a positive figure and prior to the 2003 Amendment, Explanation 4(a) to Section 271(1

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 52(1)(aa) of the Copyright Act. DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS 40. These appeals concern the DTAAs between India and the following countries/parties: 1. Commonwealth of Australia 2. Canada 55 3. People’s Republic of China 4. Republic of Cyprus 5. Republic of Finland 6. Republic of France 7. Federal Republic of Germany 8. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region