VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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. Thereafter, this amount is divided into long term capital gains and short

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

capital borrowed within the meaning of this clause; AMOUNTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

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

section (2) which would show that it is enough that the capital gain made by the assessee should only be “utilized” by him in the assessment year in question for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, that is towards purchase and acquisition of plant and machinery, and land and building. Advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital gain which could then be used to declare a special dividend to the shareholders of HTIL. We find no merit in this argument. 134. Firstly, the Tier I (Mauritius companies) were the indirect subsidiaries of HTIL who could have influenced the former to sell the shares of Indian companies in which event the gains would have arisen

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

capital gains, once this Court has recognized that amalgamation entails a transfer, that conclusion cannot be ignored while considering the ambit of Section 28. 16.4. The real question, therefore, is whether an amalgamation – though, in company law, it operates as a statutory substitution of rights – nonetheless gives 36 rise to taxable business profits under Section

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

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

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 of Rs. 3,17,83,474/- to the assessee as a consideration. 3 6. During the year, the assessee claimed long term capital loss

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

The appeal is allowed

40,59,510 7. Assessed accordingly. Give credit for prepaid taxes. Charge interest u/s 234B and 234C. Initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue demand notice and challan." 10. Thus, in the said order, valuation of the land as made by the District Valuation Officer was adopted and on the basis thereof long term capital gain

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

40) Section 9 enumerates the income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. There are two broad categories of taxability of income provided under this Section, i.e., Business Income and income from interest or royalty or fees for technical services (FTS). 41) Section 9(1)(i) provides that income is to be deemed to have accrued or arising

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains from: (1) Investments in (a) securities of the nature  referred  to   in  Section  8  of  the Indian Income Tax Act; or (b) property of the  nature   referred   to  in   Section   9  of that Act; (2) dividends, or      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 31 of 45 (3)   the   ‘other   sources’   referred   to   in Section

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

40,649/­ paid   to   the   Respondent   by   P&G,   USA   shall   be   treated   as capital gains on transfer/redemption of shares, and hence, the Respondent   is   liable   to   pay   tax   on   capital   gains.   Being aggrieved with the order dated 15.09.2003, the Respondent filed an appeal  before  the  CIT  (Appeals) being  No.  CAB/V­ 37/04­05 which was upheld by learned CIT (Appeals

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

Capital account). According to the learned counsel, the essence of deductibility under Section 37 is that the increase in liability due to foreign exchange fluctuations must fulfill the twin requirements of “expenditure” and the factum of such expenditure having been “laid out or expended”. According to the learned counsel, the expression “expenditure” is “what is paid out” and “something which

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

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

40 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 respondent. The appeals arise from the orders dated 22.04.2010 in Income Tax Appeal Nos 431 and 996 of 2008 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The subject matter of the Civil Appeals relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The appeals presented before this Court have a similar

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

Capital gains”. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge. Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by Section 45 must fall under

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 borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income referred to in Section 28. 38. In SA Builders Ltd. (supra), this

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

capital nature; (a) It has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessment of that previous year or of an earlier previous year, or (b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of the business of banking. iii) which is established to have become a bad debt in the previous year; and iv) has been written

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

40 and 40A. The balance amount is, however, deductible. 2. On January 13, 1993, Rs.86,920 is paid on account of excise duty of the previous year 1991- 92. Since this amount pertains to the previous year 1991-92, it has not been debited to the aforesaid profit and loss account. 3. The company has received Rs.24