M/S FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD BANGALOARE vs. CIT BANGALORE

3 Page 4 JUDGMENT Tribunal and held that as the notification declaring Thane to be an urban area stood repealed with the repeal of the Section under which it was made, the appellant did not satisfy the basic condition necessary to attract Section 54G, namely that a transfer had to be made from an urban area to a non urban

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

7 to Section 9(l)(i) in relation to the transfer, 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

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

gains and only in regard to capital assets? 3. Whether income would accrue to the assesses on shares received by amalgamations and will be taxable in view of non-applicability of Section 47(vii)?” 3.6. After hearing both sides, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, disposed of the appeals in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head “Capital gains”, as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand. ...12/- 12 - COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD “CAPITAL GAINS As per assessee

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

3) read with Section 56. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay capital gains on the amount of Rs. 35 lakh after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lakhs as the cost of acquisition. The Commissioner had determined the cost of acquisition at Rs. 7

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

7,45,109.72, being capital gain on the land compulsorily acquired by the Government, was transferred to capital reserve and shown as such in the balance sheet. The Directors of the appellant company took the view that there was no possibility of distributing dividend in the concerned three accounting years on account of the past losses including the loss

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares were issued then, balance amount will be treated as distribution of income to shareholder

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

gains under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 80- IB; or (vi) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility as defined as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80-IA and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in that

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

7 of 9 Section". Thus Section 80AB has been given an overriding effect over all other Sections in Chapter VIA. Section 80HHC does not provide that its provisions are to prevail over Section 80AB or over any other provision of the Act. Section 80HHC would thus be governed by Section 80AB. Decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Kerala

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

7 assessee. Therefore, the profit or loss on account of conversion of the foreign currency is of revenue account or trading asset or as a part of circulating 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

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs. JOSEPH VALAKUZHY

7. Section 80 at the relevant time provided that no loss http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5 which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed under sub-section (3) of Section 139, can be carried forward and set off under sub-section (1) of Section 72 or sub-section (2) of section

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

3 528 in Sector 8, Chandigarh so that the sale proceeds, including capital gain, can be used for purchase of the aforestated House No. 528. The said house was purchased on 30th April, 2003 i.e. well within one year from the date on which the agreement to sell had been entered into by the appellants. The validity of the Will

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

7. A further appeal by the appellant, before the Tribunal, also failed. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant moved the High Court by way of Income Tax Appeal No.819/2006 under Section 260A of the 1961 Act. By impugned decision dated 2.6.06, Delhi High Court following 3 its earlier judgment in the case of Agricultural Produce Market

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

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

3,17,83,474/. As per this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai Vs. CIT (supra), there is no reference to the percentage of share holding prior to reduction of share capital and after reduction of share capital and hence, in our considered opinion, the basis adopted

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

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

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of Section 72, or sub-section (2) of Section 73, or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of Section 74, or sub- section (3) of Section 74A, he may furnish within the time allowed under sub-section