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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

56 Mauritius deriving income from the alienation of shares of Indian companies will be liable to capital gains tax only in Mauritius, as per Mauritius tax law, and will not have any capital gains tax liability in India. CBDT Circular No. 789 dated 13.04.2000 12.6. Pursuant to further discussions between India and Mauritius, a Joint Working Group was constituted

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

gains attributable to such activities as does not exceed,— 17 (i) where such co-operative society is a consumers’ co-operative society, one hundred thousand rupees; and (ii) in any other case, fifty thousand rupees. Explanation.—In this clause, “consumers’ co-operative society” means a society for the benefit of the consumers; (d) in respect of any income

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

56,250 (-) 3,00,00 0 16,67,2 00 6,51,00 0 15000 1381920 23,18,2 00 NIL 13,96,9 20 (-) 2,43,75 0 NIL 9,21,28 0 6,77,53 0 ======= == NIL 16,80,2 00 6,51,00 0 15,000 12,43,4 70 23,31,2 00 2

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

capital gains under Section 45 of the Act. If not, it was liable to be taxed as ’income from other sources’ under Section 10(3) read with Section 56 of the Act. Section 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

56(2)(d)   and   57(3)   of   the   IT   Act,   and   the securities are now taxable under the head of “Income from other Sources”.   Therefore, the principles laid down in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd.1 will squarely apply. He argued that the increase in capital by the acquisition of securities results in the expansion of the Bank's capital

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obviously, the finding of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars cannot be faulted..." 16. Mr. Anil B. Dewan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Capital, and are therefore substantially similar, if not identical, in respect of the provisions concerning “business profits” and “royalties”. The provisions of one of these DTAAs, namely the India-Singapore DTAA, are set out as follows: 56 “ARTICLE 2 - TAXES COVERED 1. The taxes to which this Agreement shall apply are: (a) in India: income-tax including any surcharge thereon

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

56 alone, income, profits and gains must be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with Section 28. Therefore, Section 145(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MYSODET

capital of the company is throughout the previous year beneficially held by an institution or fund established in India for a charitable purpose the income from dividend whereof is exempt under section 11. (3) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification

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

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

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, KOCHI vs. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD

Capital Gains and (v) Income from Other Sources. Thereafter, manner of computation of the income under the aforesaid heads is stipulated in various sections falling under Chapter IV. As far as Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession is concerned, Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act contain the procedure for computation of income under this head. Therefore

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