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

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

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

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

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

M/S KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

81 of the Companies Act in the fresh issue of capital is a tangible right and is not an interest in future property but it is existing property as defined in the Gift-tax Act and, therefore, Tribunal was right in directing the Gift-tax Officer to levy gift tax on the market quotations of the rights. This judgment

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Capital Gains & Income from other sources. The Section 14A relates to expenditure incurred in relation to income which are not includable in Total Income and which are exempted from tax. No taxes are therefore levied on such exempted income. The Section 14A had been incorporated in the Income Tax Act to ensure that expenditure incurred in generating such tax exempted

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

gains attributable to such activities as does not exceed,— 17 (i) where such co-operative society is a consumers’ co-operative society, one hundred thousand rupees; and (ii) in any other case, fifty thousand rupees. Explanation.—In this clause, “consumers’ co-operative society” means a society for the benefit of the consumers; (d) in respect of any income

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

81,62,49,276/-. Mr. Dastur relied upon the case of Sea Pearl Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2001) Vol. 247 ITR 578. In this case the Appellant (therein) was not an export house and therefore could not avail of special facilities granted to export houses. The Appellant however entered into an agreement with an export house

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Sections mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) who passed an order on 15th October, 1998. The appeal was allowed in part inasmuch as it was held that the Assessee was entitled to a deduction towards legal expenses. However, the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction or depreciation on the Intellectual

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.

81,870/- after giving effect to the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai dated 14.9.2004 and after giving credit to pre-paid tax. 9. We have already indicated, for not filing of returns and due to non-compliance of the various statutory provisions, prosecution was initiated under Section 276CC of the Act against all the accused persons

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

gains of business or profession”. [Explanation 1].—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

81,711,877 IHI, BNI & TEIL D-2.2 Offshore Services (Total of 2.2.2 to 2.2.3) http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 27 Nil 19,756,225 IHI, BNI & TEIL D-2.3 Onshore Supply (Total of 2.3.1 to 2.3.3) 1,869,978,658 Nil IHI, BNI & TEIL D-2.4 Onshore Services (Total