METTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TEX, MADRAS-1

Appeal is dismissed,

gains, inter alia, derived from any industrial undertaking to which the Section applies, as does not exceed 6% per annum on the capital employed in such undertaking. Sub-section (2) of Section 84

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

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

capital employed during the assessment year in question. It cannot be held by any process of construction, even by turning and twisting the language of sub-section ( I ) of Sec. 80J that for the purpose of allowing the deduction contemplated under that http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9 section the profits or gains

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

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

84,71,384/- is directed to be allowed u/s 43B of the I.T. Act.” 5. This order was upheld in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”]. The ITAT held: “9. … The Section was introduced to curb the mischief of withholding tax payment by the assessee, while at the same time claiming deduction thereof in the income-tax assessments

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

section 23A of the Income-tax Act :-- on that part of the said dividends which exceeds 6 per cent, but does not exceed 10 per cent of the paid-up capital; at the rate of 10% on that part of the said dividends which exceeds 10 per cent of the paid-up capital; at the rate of 20% http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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

CHALLAPALLI SUGAR LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P. HYDERABAD

section even though such money constitutes share capital. The same principle, should hold good if interest is paid on money not raised by way of share capital but taken on loan for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the construction of any work or building or the provision of any plant. The reason indeed would be stronger in case

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-IB provides for deductions

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

84, wherein, in the context of Section 80-E, it was held that for the purpose of allowing deduction under the said provision it was necessary to first compute the total income of the assessee in accordance with the other provisions of the Act, i.e., in accordance with all the provisions except Section 80-E. The decision in Cloth Traders

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

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

capital gains to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000.00. (d) Disallowance under Rule 6D to the extent of Rs. 31,963.00." Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT (Appeals), the assessee carried an appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal in respect of premium, depreciation and interest, which together represented an amount of Rs. 32,84,153.00. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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

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

84,701/-, in all, totalling Rs. 1,02,03,121/- from which AO allowed deduction of Rs. 20,34,605/- on account of Hire Purchase Finance Charges leaving a balance provision for NPA of Rs. 81,68,516/-. Before the AO, Assessee claimed deduction in respect of Rs. 81,68,516/- under Section 36(1)(vii) being Provision

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

84,063 thus converting the profit into a loss of Rs.2,19,848 for income-tax purposes, and the company was adjudged not to be liable to income-tax for the relevant assessment year 1951-52. The company, however, declared dividends in that year amounting to Rs.3,29,062 and the question was whether this amount was "excess dividend" within

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. WILLAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES

Bench: The 60 : 40 Apportionment Under Rule 8(1) Or From 40% Profits On Sales Taxable As Business Income. 3. Rule 8(1) Of The Said Rule Provides That 40% Of The Composite Income From Sale Of Tea, Grown & Manufactured, Arrived At On Making Of The Apportionment \023Shall Be Deemed To Be Income Liable To Tax\024. 4. Assessees Exported Tea In The Accounting Year. They Were Entitled To Deduction Under Section 80Hhc Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, \0211961 Act\024) In Respect Of The Export. They Were In The Business Of Growing & Manufacturing Tea. Since They Earned Composite Income, Their Case Stood Covered By Rule 8(1) Of Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (\0231962 Rule\024 For Short). 5. For The Sake Of Convenience We State The Facts Occurring In Civil Appeal No.3803-3808 Of 2005- Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Willamson Financial Services & Ors. In The Returns, The Assessee Claimed Section 80Hhc Deduction Against The Entire Composite Income Before Application Of Rule 8(1).

84 (SC) which had been approved by the Constitution Bench later on in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. \026 (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) in which it has been held that though a deduction does not appear in Chapter IV, it has a direct impact upon the computation of income under

M/S. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed, without any order as to costs

84,237/-, must be added to the capital as on August 1, 1969 for the purpose of capital computation. The Income Tax Officer rejected the said contention of the assessee-Company, out the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee a case. A reference was made by the taxing department under Section 256(1) of the Income

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. 1 Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances 40A.(7)(a) Subject to the provisions of Clause