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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital appreciation and investment income. The assessees are regulated by the Financial Services Commission3 in Mauritius and have been granted a Category I Global Business License4 under Section 72(6) of the Financial Services Act, 2007, enacted by the Parliament of Mauritius. 5.1. The business of the assessees, according to them, is wholly controlled and managed by their Board

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 209 of the Companies Act, mercantile system of accounting is made mandatory for companies. In other words, accounting standard which is continuously adopted by an assessee can be superseded or modified by legislative intervention. However, but for such intervention or in cases falling under Section 145(3), the method of accounting undertaken by the assessee continuously is supreme

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. MADURAI MILLS CO. LIMITED

capital gains as contemplated by section 12B of the Act in respect of the amount of Rs. 95,944/- [667D] (ii) If the language of subsection (1) of section 12B of the Act is clear and does not warrant the inference that distribution of assets on liquidation of a company constitutes sale, transfer or exchange the said transaction of distribution

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

capital gains ought or ought not to be treated as commercial or business profits on which dividends could be distributed. It would ultimately depend on the facts and circumstances of each case based upon which the Board of Directors take a commercial decision as to whether dividend should be distributed thereupon or not. In any event, it appears

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

57,69,186/- out of the total distributable assets of DDT Company and Rs. 36,53,453/- out of the total distributable assets of T.T. Company. Section 2(1) defines agricultural income. Section 2(4A) defines capital asset to mean property of any kind held by an assessee whether or not connected with his business, profession or vocation but does

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL III, CALCUTTA vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY, CALCUTTA ETC

capital expenditure) laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income". The expenditure to be deductible under section 57(iii) must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The argument of the Revenue was that unless the expenditure sought to be deducted resulted

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

The appeal is allowed

57. The methods of valuation, as we know, may be different. A registered valuer is supposed to know as to which method or mode should be adopted for the purpose of valuing particular land or a building having regard to a large number of factors involved therein. The tax on capital gains does not envisage that the valuation given must

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

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 base, which helps

SHEKHAWATI GENERAL TRADERS LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE I, JAIPUR

The appeals are allowed and the

sections 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition", in relation to a capital asset (i) where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before the 1st day of January 1954 means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1st day of January, 1954, at the option

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL vs. H.H. MAHARANI USHA DEVI

gains shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The term ’Capital asset’ has been defined in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3 Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. Section 2(14), as it stood at the relevant time, was as follows: Section

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,MEERUT, ETC. ETC. vs. M/S VIRMANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ETC. ETC

Appeal is allowed accordingly

57 is the depreciation provided by sub-section (1) as well as sub- section (2) of Section 32. Inasmuch as Section 32(2) refers to sub-section (2) of Section 72 and sub-section (3) of Section 73, it would be appropriate to reproduce the said provisions. Sub-section (2) of Section 72 says: "(2) Where any allowance or part

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

gains on the basis of the rate chargeable by the distribution licensee from the consumer and that the benefit could only be claimed on the basis of the rates fixed by the tariff regulatory commission for sale of electricity by the generating company. Facts being clearly distinguishable, this decision can be of no assistance to the revenue. 46 33. Before

A.L.A. FIRM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

capital gains were chargeable to tax. Not satisfied, the I.T.O. issued a notice under section 148 read with Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed objections. Overruling all the objections, the Income Tax Officer completed reassessment of the assessee Firm adding back the sum of Rs. 1,58,057 to the previously assessed income. Having

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

capital assets, but not by the appellant-Corporation itself. Thus, a conclusion was reached that, in terms of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’) as it stood for the relevant assessment year, any expenditure (except of the prohibited type) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY vs. H. HOLCK LARSEN

gain in an operation of profit-making. The assessee might invest his capital in shares with the intention to resell these if in future their sale bring in a higher price. Such http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 20 an investment though motivated by a possibility of enhanced value, did not necessarily render the investment a transaction

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

Section 143(3) of the Act disallowing certain claims and rejecting the contentions of the assessee. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.09.1998 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the following items: (a) Premium amount of Rs. 3,57,153.00 (b) Depreciation