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

1) and, therefore, in case of the applicant-company for purposes of computation of capital gains tax adjusted written down value as defined in clause (6) of section 43

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

gains” as aforesaid, the same proportion as the amount of expenditure ascertained under clause (a) bears to the amount of the said income: Provided that the amount of the tax credit certificate shall in no case exceed the amount of the tax aforesaid. (3) The amount shown on a tax credit certificate granted to a company under this section shall

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

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

capital borrowed within the meaning of this clause;" "Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires \026 (1

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

1) introduced in response to Vodafone. These amendments, later made prospective, had no bearing on the operation of GAAR. The speech thus clarified that GAAR would apply prospectively, which implementation was ultimately deferred to 01.04.2017. Accordingly, GAAR became applicable from AY 2018–19, and the transaction in the present case, pertaining to AY 2019–20, squarely falls within its ambit

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

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

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

1), Commissioner of Income-tax, ,Bombay v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer (India) Ltd.(2) and Caltex (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of. Income-tax, Bombay City(3), where it has http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9 been held that section 43 is only a machinery for giving effect to section 42. To say that section 43 is really

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

1) Any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal 43 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

Capital gains. Various sections deal with how income, profits and gains under each http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21 head have to be computed. Section 10 deals with the computation of profits and gains of any business carried on by an assessee. Section 10(2) prescribes the allowances which have to be deducted before computing

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

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

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1)(b) of the Act, it is further stipulated that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, then, in addition to the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset, a further deduction, as specified in Section 48(2) of the Act, which is similar

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

capital asset situated 38 in India (referred as business income). Explanation 1(a) to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act provides an exclusion in the case of operations which are not carried out in India. The explanation provides that the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only that part

M/S SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

43(5) [i.e., Rules 6DDA and 6DDB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962] has been published in the Official Gazette on 1st July, 2005 vide S. O. No. 932(E). Applicability: From A.Y. 2006-07 onwards.” 16 Section 73 deals with losses from speculation business. Under sub- 8 Section (1) of Section 73, a loss computed in relation to speculation

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

gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not. We also quote hereinbelow Section 41(2) [Omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

43, and is not capital in nature, but is laid out or spent exclusively for the purpose of business, under Section 37 of the Act. A similar provision existed under the old Income Tax Act, 1922 as in the case of provision for bad debts, by Section 10(2)11. This aspect was considered 10 [1963] Supp (1