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

5 Page 6 JUDGMENT done, it is not necessary for the assessee to deposit before furnishing such return, the amount in a Capital Gain Deposit Scheme and utilize such proceeds in accordance with the scheme which the Central Government may by notification frame in this behalf. His further contention was that in any case the explanation added to Section

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

43 and 43A (which otherwise mandates assessee to maintain accounts, claim and prove expenses). Only the 27 receipts are taken into account. Even if the actual profits and gains of the assessee are more than 10%, only 10% is presumed to be its income. Thus, 10% is the income and the rest 90% is allowed as expenditure/allowable claims

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

Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”, or a company the principal business of which is the business of trading in shares or banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

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

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

D G M E N T S.H. KAPADIA,J. Heard learned counsel on both sides. In this batch of civil appeals, the narrow issue which arises for determination is the nature of the loss suffered by the appellant(s) [assessee(s)] – whether Rs.2,43,750/- was a short-term capital loss, as contended on behalf of the assessee

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

D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3952-3955 OF 2002 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 8509-10 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda \005 Appellant (s) versus M/s. Core Health Care Ltd. ... Respondent (s) KAPADIA, J. For the sake of convenience we state the facts occurring in Civil Appeal Nos.3952-55 of 2002 \026 Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

43-B. In the circumstances, the decisions in Standard Chartered [2006 (6) SCC 94] and Sunrise Associates [2006 (5) SCC 603], which declared the nature and character of debentures, are of little avail.” 11. Shri Biswajit Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, first drew this Court’s attention to an order dated 20th April

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

gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation. Facts in M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7632/08] – CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASE: 22. The main issue which arises

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

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

D of Chapter IV dealing with ‘profits and gains from business or profession’. Section 29 of the Act, in this behalf, specifically stipulates that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. In this hue, he argued, when it comes to claiming depreciation, Section 32 of the Act gets

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

The appeal is allowed

5 of 26 at Rs.1,44,92,907/- as per the report of the Dist. Valuation Officer-II, Mumbai. Accordingly, the Long Term Capital Gain is worked out as under : Less: Cost of acquisition as on 1.4.81 as per the Dept. Valuer’s report as discussed is Rs. 1,44,92,907 Indexed cost

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

D’ is of income from “profits   and   gains   of   business   or   profession”   covered   by Section 28 of the IT Act.  Profits and gains from any business or profession that the assessee carried out at any time during the   previous   year   are   chargeable   to   income   tax.     Under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

43). [See National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India 192 ITR 187 (Delhi)] 6. The relevant provisions under Section 115JAA of the Act, introduced by Finance Act, 1997 w.e.f. 1.4.1997, i.e., applicable for assessment years 1997-98 and onwards, governing the carry forward and set off of credit available in respect of tax paid under Section 115JA, show

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

d) any profit on the transfer of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Scheme under the export and import policy formulated and announced under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992); (iii-e) any profit on the transfer of the Duty Free Replenishment Certificate, being the CIVIL APPEAL

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. WILLAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES

Bench: The 60 : 40 Apportionment Under Rule 8(1) Or From 40% Profits On Sales Taxable As Business Income. 3. Rule 8(1) Of The Said Rule Provides That 40% Of The Composite Income From Sale Of Tea, Grown & Manufactured, Arrived At On Making Of The Apportionment \023Shall Be Deemed To Be Income Liable To Tax\024. 4. Assessees Exported Tea In The Accounting Year. They Were Entitled To Deduction Under Section 80Hhc Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, \0211961 Act\024) In Respect Of The Export. They Were In The Business Of Growing & Manufacturing Tea. Since They Earned Composite Income, Their Case Stood Covered By Rule 8(1) Of Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (\0231962 Rule\024 For Short). 5. For The Sake Of Convenience We State The Facts Occurring In Civil Appeal No.3803-3808 Of 2005- Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Willamson Financial Services & Ors. In The Returns, The Assessee Claimed Section 80Hhc Deduction Against The Entire Composite Income Before Application Of Rule 8(1).

D G M E N T With Civil Appeal No.1021 of 2006, Civil Appeal No.1825 of 2007, Civil Appeal No.1827 of 2007, Civil Appeal No. 5827 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2275 of 2007, Civil Appeal Nos.6719-20 of 2004 KAPADIA, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No.2275 of 2007. 2. The intricate question which arises for determination