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

44,130 number of shares would have been Rs.1,49,54,41,300/-. In our considered view, the ITAT has rightly followed authority in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. The Commissioner of Income Tax : 1998 2 ITR 163 SC with regard to meaning of transfer by holding that there was no transfer within the meaning of that expression contained in Section

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gain was determined to be Rs.3,09,78,478 by taking the valuation of the 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant as Rs.1,44,92,907 as on 01.04.1981. In view of the said order of assessment, a show cause notice under 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

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

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

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

capital, and the gain from foreign exchange fluctuation comes within the permissible deduction of Section 80 HHC of the Act. He places strong reliance on Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta1 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd2. The Learned Counsel also places reliance on Commissioner of Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR

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

capital   asset, Section 50C could have no application at all. In the income tax return for assessment year 2008­09 (during which the relevant events as mentioned above took place) the transaction in question was duly offered to tax under the head   "profit   and   gains   of   business   and profession". All these facts were considered by Page 37 of 44

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

gains an amount which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have accrued to the assessee or been received by him and it must be confined to cases where the actual consideration received for the transfer is understated and since in such cases it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine and prove the exact quantum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

gains to be computed after making the allowances therein set out. Clause (vi) thereof speaks of allowances in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant, etc., and the proviso (a) to clause (vi) reads thus: "Provided that the prescribed particulars have been duly furnished". In proceedings for the Assessment Year 1955-56, the Income-tax Officer held that depreciation must

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

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

Section 44 thereof and Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule appended thereto, which read as under : "S.44.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property, capital gains

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’, Section 37 of the Act enables 44 the deduction of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession, as the case may be. The fact that an item of expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business by itself is not sufficient

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

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

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

capital receipt or revenue receipt and would thus, be taxable. However, thereafter, and in order to put an end to the dispute, the legislature by way of inserting clauses 28 (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) has made the said incentives taxable under the head of “profits and gains of business and profession”. 7.2 Section 80-IB provides for deductions

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

capital expenditure on the scientific research business). In such a case, it cannot be said that the legislature intended to give double deduction in respect of the same business outgoing and the assessee would have to choose one out of the above two deductions and cannot claim both the deductions. In these circumstances, the Apex Court in the case

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital of CDBL listed in the Bombay and Delhi Stock Exchanges. The break-up of the shares held by the family members of the appellant and the appellant himself are as follows: Name of the Shareholder Number of Shares held in CDBL Shiv Raj Gupta (Appellant) 38,999 Jayant Gupta (Appellant’s Son) 44,658 Roopa Gupta (Appellant’s Daughter

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

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

capital expenditure or personal expenditure, shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”. Therefore, it is clear that there is no restriction under Section 37(1) of the Act that, for an expenditure to be deductible under it, it must be incurred in India. b) This position