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

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 80

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

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

capital receipt or revenue receipt and would thus, be taxable. However, thereafter, and in order to put an end to the dispute, the legislature by way of inserting clauses 28 (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) has made the said incentives taxable under the head of “profits and gains of business and profession”. 7.2 Section 80

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 583(4)(a) thereof. The said petition was registered as Company Petition No. 1 of 1988. Significantly, though the firm stood dissolved on December 06, 1987, and thereafter Company Petition No. 1 of 1988 for the winding up proceedings after dissolution was filed in the High Court, the business of the partnership firm continued because of the interim order

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

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

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

gains of the business, Sections 30 to 43D had to be applied which would embrace Section 32 as well. 12 8) Counsel appearing in other appeals for the assessees made their submissions almost on the same lines thereby virtually adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Percy. 9) Learned counsel for the Revenue emphatically refuted the aforesaid submissions. He extensively referred

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

capital gains arising in such cases will be exempt to the extent they are utilized within a period of one year before or three years after the date of transfer, for the purchase of new machinery or plant or acquiring land and building, etc., for the purpose of the business in the 15 Page 16 JUDGMENT area to which

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital gain which could then be used to declare a special dividend to the shareholders of HTIL. We find no merit in this argument. 134. Firstly, the Tier I (Mauritius companies) were the indirect subsidiaries of HTIL who could have influenced the former to sell the shares of Indian companies in which event the gains would have arisen

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXTAMIL NADU- vs. , MADRAS VS KOTAGIRI INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVETEA FACTORY LTD., KOTAGIRI

Section 80-T of the Act this Court has followed the decision in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in H.H. Sir Rama Varma v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). In that case it has been held that a long term capital loss brought forward from earlier assessment years had to be first set off against the long term capital gains

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

80-IA, section 80J and section 80JJ. (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) “co-operative bank” and “primary agricultural credit society” shall have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. P.V.A.L. KULANDAGAN CHETTIAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS

capital plant and machinery; (bb) Section 33 - relating to development rebate in respect off ships, machinery or plant; (cc) Section 80-J - relating to deduction in respect of profits and gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. PVT. LTD., PATIALA

capital employed during the previous year (such amount, in either case, being hereafter, in this section referred to as deficiency) shall be carried forward and set off against the profits and gains referred to in sub-section (1) [as computed after allowing the deductions, if any, admissible under section 80

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

The appeal is allowed

Capital gains" in respect of that asset under section 46, means the fair market value of the asset on the date of distribution: 78. Section 55A of the Act provides for reference to Valuation Officer. A bare perusal of the said provision will clearly go to show that the reference to a Valuation Officer is optional. The said provision

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

capital expenditure on scientific research and development which is fully deductible under section 35 of the 1961 Act would be assessed to tax under this section. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the profit & loss account the assessee has debited depreciation at the rates prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This has been the consistent

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

80,40,649/­ paid   to   the   Respondent   by   P&G,   USA   shall   be   treated   as capital gains on transfer/redemption of shares, and hence, the Respondent   is   liable   to   pay   tax   on   capital   gains.   Being aggrieved with the order dated 15.09.2003, the Respondent filed an appeal  before  the  CIT  (Appeals) being  No.  CAB/V­ 37/04­05 which was upheld by learned

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

80 HHC must have the same meaning in the entire Section. He submitted that as the word profit in Section 80HHC (1) means only positive profit, it will have the same meaning in Section 80HHC (3)(c). He submitted that thus the word profit in Section 80HHC (3)(c) would not include losses and if there are any losses they