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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

81,900 and asked the assessee company to pay tax thereon. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee company had sold the managing agency and therefore the profits or gains arising from that sale were capital gains within the meaning of s. 12B of the Act. The Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench ’A’, held, however, that there

VANIA SILK MILLS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the’ appeal succeeds and the impugned

81,741, treating the same as capital gains chargeable under Section 45 of the Act. The contention ad- vanced by the assessee

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

Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs.3.675 10 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.12,81,724/-. The long term capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHIVAKAMI CO. PVT. LTD

81,201 and Rs.1,00,000 respectively from the above said break-up value, a sum of Rs.91,599 and Rs.54,000 respectively had been determined as the capital gain under the first proviso to section

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

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

capital gains. Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021 Page 14 of 20 5.7 It is submitted that therefore the Commissioner wrongly assumed the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act on the ground that the order passed by the AO was an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision

THE MADHYA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVEBANK LIMITED, JABALPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL

section 81 would apply in the case of that co-operative society alone which is engaged in an activity other than those mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) which not being so as regards the appellants, the proviso has no application; and so, no part of its profit of gain can attract income tax. We do not think this

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. P.S.S. INVESTMENTS (P) LTD

gains of the company out of which dividends were declared had to be looked into for working out the proportion under Explanation (iii) to Para- graph D of Part II to the First Schedule to the Finance Act of 1958. At the instance of the Commissioner, the questions reproduced above were thereafter referred to the High Court. 81 In appeal

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

Section 81 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that if a company proposes to increase its subscribed capital by allotment of further shares, such shares should be offered to the existing share-holders of equity shares and the offer should be deemed to include a right to renounce the shares. The right to receive the new shares is embedded

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

capital assets enumerated therein. It may appear intriguing on the part of the assessee as to why it does not claim the benefit of deduction from its taxable income, but the choice is clearly its. Where the assessee does not want the benefit, it cannot be thrust upon it. There is no provision which makes it compulsory on the part

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

gains of business of profession: Rs. Net profit as P & L account Add: Amount not deductible by virtue of secs.40 and 40A 10,30,000 51,600 Less: Excise duty of 1991-92, deductible by virtue of section 43B [see para 49.10] 10,81,600 (-) 86,920 Business income (under section 28) Capital

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

BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. BOMBAY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BOMBAY CITY-IIIBOMBAY

Accordingly succeed and are allowed

gains derived from any industrial undertaking to which this section ap- plies as do not exceed six percent per annum on the capital employed in the undertaking, computed in accordance with such rules as may be made in the behalf by the Central Board of Revenue. (2) This section applies to any industrial under- taking which (i) is not formed

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. He contended that, in the case of the present appellant, the giving effect order made by the CIT (Appeals) had not been fully worked out by the Assessing Officer as income under the four heads i.e. a) disallowance of bad debts to the extent of Rs. 68,02,046.00; b) income from house property to the.extent

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

Section 81 of the Indian Companies Act, - "When a company prospers and accumulates a large surplus it converts this surplus into capital and divides the capital among its members in proportion to their rights. This is done by issuing fully paid shares representing the increased capital. The shareholders to whom the shares are allotted have to pay nothing. The purpose

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

81,68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This claim

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA-III vs. KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK

Appeals are dismissed

gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities : The question in appeal reads : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income arising from the investment made out of reserve fund is exempt under Sec.80-P (2) (a) (i) of the Income