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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

gains tax under Indian law because the transaction’s underlying assets were situated in India. The main legal question was whether the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 could be used to tax the transfer of shares of a foreign corporation that indirectly possessed assets in India. This Court interpreted Section 9(1)(i), which deals with income deemed to accrue

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 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, for its failure to distribute the required statutory percentage of dividend during the concerned previous years ending on 31st March 1973. 31st March 1974 and 31st March 1975, respectively. The figures of total income-tax assessed and the distributable

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

The appeal is allowed

64,664 Long term Capital Gains : As discussed above 3,09,78,478 Income from Other Sources : Interest income as per Statement 30,31,364 --------------- TOTAL INCOME 3,40,59,506 Rounded off 3,40,59,510 7. Assessed accordingly. Give credit for prepaid taxes. Charge interest u/s 234B and 234C. Initiate penalty proceedings

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

64,530/- for the Assessment Year 1987-88 received by the assessee towards mobilization charges for the purpose of imposing income tax and CIT (Appeals) and ITAT were also right in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.” 38) We feel that High Court may not be entirely correct in law in excluding the provisions of Sections

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

64] to submit that fiscal and tax statutes have to be strictly construed and that since the word “debenture” is not specified in Explanation 3C, it cannot be read into it. 15. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, argued that Section 43B makes a departure from other Sections in the Act, as indicated by its non-obstante clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

gains of business and, therefore, the said section commences with the words "In Sections 28 to 41 and unless the context otherwise requires" "actual cost" shall mean the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reducing by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority

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

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. 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

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

64,492.00 under Section 115JA of the Act and a loss of Rs. 20,52,26,552.00. Though initially the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 143 thereof. 10.3. During the assessment year 1999-2000, assessee had acquired the glass division from Nicholas Piramal India Limited for which

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Gains (LTCG) in the shares of Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited (now known as Yantra Natural Resources Limited) from Shirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) through Pradip Birewar. Pradip Birewar is an Ahmedabad based accommodation entry provider who is facilitating one time and other accommodation entries including LTCG entries to various clients on receipt of cash. He is facilitating these entries through bigger

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

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

capital, in the assessment year relevant to the previous year. 16 “Substantial expansion” is defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC and it reads as under: "(ix) “Substantial expansion” means increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty per cent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking

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

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

capital gain; but, in the case of goodwill generated in a new business, it was not possible to determine the date when it came into existence. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, we are inclined to hold that if any one or more of the base figures forming part of computations under clauses

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

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

Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or busi- ness carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own ju- risdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own ju- risdictional area. Explanation

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the amendment, with effect from 1-4-2003 the Explanation “local authority” was defined to include only the authorities enumerated in the Explanation, which

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

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.

64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M/s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. Criminal Appeal Nos.62 Page 2 JUDGMENT 2 and 63 of 2007 relate