VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or body, of the previous year

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

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 gain in the 18 hands of the respondent-assessee as part of the full value of the sale consideration paid for transfer of shares. This finding would clearly be in the teeth of Section 260-A (4), requiring the judgment to be set aside on this score.” 9.1. Undoubtedly, Section 260A envisages that an appeal to the High Court

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section (1) does not exceed fifteen thousand rupees, the whole of such amount; [b] in any other case, fifteen thousand rupees as increased by a sum equal to,-- (i) in respect of long-term capital gain so arrived at relating to capital assets, being buildings or lands or any rights in buildings or lands or gold, bullion or jewellery,-- ...6

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

section 109(i), while defining "distributable income", specifically takes in and includes the gross total income of the company as reduced by, inter alia, losses under the head "capital gains" relating to the capital assets, other than short term capital assets. On the second contention, as to whether capital gains, not being commercial profits in the strict sense, could

SH. SANJEEV LAL ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH&AN

6. Upon transfer of the house property, long term capital gain had arisen, but as the appellants had purchased a new residential house and the amount of the capital gain had been used for purchase of the said new asset, believing that the long term capital gain was Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 not chargeable to income

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

6 of the Act classified taxable income under the following   several   heads   :   (i)   salaries;   (ii) interest   on   securities;   (iii)   income   from property; (iv) profits and gains of business, profession or vocation; (v) income from other sources; and (vi) capital gains. The scheme of the Act is that income tax is one tax. Section

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

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

6 9. The Revenue went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue and affirming the order passed by the ITAT observed in para 8 as under: “Undisputed facts are, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court of Bombay, number of shares has been reduced

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

6. The issue of exigibility to capital gains tax having been decided in favour of the assessee, the question of exemption under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

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

gains for first five years and 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) for the next five years. This sub-section, in any case, does not deal with the ‘initial assessment year’. 13.Learned counsel appearing for the assessees pointed out before us that clause (v) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC is the concerned provision which

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

6,42,300), after deduction of liquidated damages, the AO erred in bringing to tax the gross amount of US$1 million under Section 44BB of the Act. 25) Mr. Lakshmikumaran and Mr. Jay Savla, learned advocates appearing for some other assessees treaded the same path by adopting same line of arguments. 26) M/s. Chidananda and Arijit Prasad, learned advocates

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 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was served to which a reply was filed

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

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

capital gains in a particular case may tantamount to a failure in raising a substantial question of law in terms of Section 260A of the Act. However, the same may not apply on interest as the interest is automatic and mandatory. 4.14 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed that the present appeals be dismissed

ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT V. PATEL

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

6) At the outset, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the High Court erred in law while upholding that the amount received on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) is to be treated as capital gains and not perquisite under section

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

6. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that, in this case, the assessee(s) claims deduction under Section 37, which is a residuary provision, as there is no specific provision dealing with adjustment based on foreign exchange fluctuations on the Revenue account (akin to Section 43A, which deals with such adjustments

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

6) 23. To similar effect is this Court’s judgment in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, (1981) 2 SCC 460, held:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

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