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.

9 SCC 686, in any view, which calls for reconsideration. Learned senior counsel submitted that the said Judgment deals with the factum of proviso to Section 276CC of the Act which lays down that there is no offence if the tax amount does not exceed Rs.3,000/-. 11. Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing

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

9. On the same date, by the same Finance Act, Section 280ZA was omitted with effect from the same date i.e. 1.4.1988. We have been referred to the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance when he introduced the Finance Act, 1987. Among other things, the learned Minister stated:- “83. Concentration of industries in many of our urban areas poses

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NAVIN SARDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEERUT

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

capital asset situated 38 in India (referred as business income). Explanation 1(a) to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act provides an exclusion in the case of operations which are not carried out in India. The explanation provides that the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only that part

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

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 of treaty eligibility under Section 90(2) is the satisfaction

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

The appeal is allowed in part and to

gains as are reasonably attributable to that part of the operations carried out in the taxable territories. Thus comes in the question of apportionment under sub-section (3) of Section 42." In CIT v. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building Co. Ltd. [259 ITR 248], on which reliance was placed; the contention was that the finding that the contract for designing

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 (1

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

v. Ghanshyam (HUF)9 and we would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment: “16. The following conditions need to be satisfied for taxing a transaction as capital gains viz. the subject-matter must be a capital asset, the transaction must fall in the definition of “transfer”, there must be profit or loss called “capital gains

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

v), 19(3), 30A, 52(1)(ad), 58 and 65A of the Copyright Act to buttress the submission that in some of the cases 12 187 ITR (St.) 0063. 25 before us, since adaptation of software could be made, albeit for installation and use on a particular computer, copyright is parted with by the original owner. He added that section

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

1) — Capital gains “Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

9 which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year.” Income from profits and gains of business or profession, how computed: Section 29: “The income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D.” General: Section 37 : “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure

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

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obviously, the finding of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars cannot be faulted..." 16. Mr. Anil B. Dewan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent

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

9 of the Prudential Norms 1998. As per the said method of accounting, the “Provision for NPA” actually represented depreciation in the value of the assets and, consequently, it is deductible under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. In this connection, appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in 4 Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Woodward Governor

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

9 (1989) 2 SCC 458 10 (2009) 314 ITR 167 39 Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Sree Durga Distributors Vs. State of Karnataka11; (ii) Mohd. Shabir Vs. State of Maharashtra12; 14.7. Applying the above principle to the issue in hand, it is submitted that the specific words ‘know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

Capital gains. Various sections deal with how income, profits and gains under each http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21 head have to be computed. Section 10 deals with the computation of profits and gains of any business carried on by an assessee. Section 10(2) prescribes the allowances which have to be deducted before computing

N. BAGAVATHY AMMAL vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI

9 to 11 do get leased portions as shown in the plans, signed by liquidator Mr. K.M.Boothalingam Pillai and handed over to the appellant this day." The appellants thereby received 479.89 acres of the agricultural lands prior to the end of the relevant accounting year that was 31.3.70 . The assessment in respect of the year 1970-71 had been completed

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

capital which the assessee has borrowed. Further, the words "actual cost" do not find place in Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act which otherwise find place in Sections 32, 32A etc of the 1961 Act. The expression "actual cost" is defined in Section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which is essentially a definition section which is subject