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.

49,153/- and tax determined at Rs.46,68,676/- and demand of Rs.96,98,801/-, inclusive of interest at Rs.55,53,882/- was raised after adjusting pre-paid tax of Rs.5,23,756/-. The Department then issued show- cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC on 14.6.1996. Later, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of Income

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

49 stipulating that insofar as capital asset in relation to goodwill of a business is concerned, cost of acquisition would be the cost at which it was purchased from the previous owner. According to him, this yardstick could not have been applied prior to April 01, 2002 in the absence of any statutory scheme and the instant case needed

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

The appeal is allowed

1) of section 49, and the capital asset became the property of the previous owner before the1st day of April, [1981], means the cost of the capital asset to the previous owner or the fair market value of the asset on the 1st day of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 26 April, [1981], at the option

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

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

Section 49(1)(iii)(e) specifically provides that for capital gains, the cost of shares in the amalgamated company shall

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

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

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

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

capital reserves representing surplus arising 23 out of sale proceeds of asset, excluding reserves created by revaluation of asset, as reduced by accumulated loss balance, book value of intangible assets and deferred revenue expenditure, if any; (xv) “standard asset” means the asset in respect of which, no default in repayment of principal or payment of interest is perceived and which

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

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

49,228 3 Distributable surplus Rs. 1,02,420 Rs.22,902 4 Dividends that ought to Rs. 92,223 Rs. 20,612 have been declared by the company, i.e. 90% 5 Dividend declared by Nil Nil the assessee company 6 Debit balance in profit Rs. 91,472 Rs.20,508 and loss account 7 Capital reserve shown in Rs.7

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

1 of 4 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2335 of 2003 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai RESPONDENT: D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2005 BENCH: Ruma Pal,Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T RUMA PAL, J. The primary question involved in this appeal is whether the amount received

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

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

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 2(47) of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in 30 referring to the expression “of the nature referred to in Section 53A” in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive at the opposite

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

SHRIMAND PADMARAJA R. KADAMBANDA, DHULIA vs. THE COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

1) says: "From the amount payable to any person under sec- tion 11, there shall be deducted the amount of any maintenance allowance 721 which under sub-section (2) is debitable to the share of that person." Section 13 required the jagir administrator to maintain separate accounts in respect of each jagir and afford the concerned jagirdar and hissedar reasonable