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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

capital appreciation and investment income. The assessees are regulated by the Financial Services Commission3 in Mauritius and have been granted a Category I Global Business License4 under Section 72(6) of the Financial Services Act, 2007, enacted by the Parliament of Mauritius. 5.1. The business of the assessees, according to them, is wholly controlled and managed by their Board

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

Section 43A of the 1961 Act. At this stage, we are concerned only with para 9 which deals with revenue items. Para 9 of AS-11 16 recognises exchange differences as income or expense. In cases where, e.g., the rate of dollar rises vis-à-vis the Indian rupee, there is an expense during that period. The important point

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

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

vi-a) the fair market value of inventory on the date on which it is converted into, or treated as, a capital asset determined in the prescribed manner; ….” Section 45(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

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

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

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

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

vi) Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs. 1,47,97,994.00, an amount of Rs. 67,79,982.00 ( Rs. 57,51,520.00 + Rs. 10,28,462.00 = Rs. 67, 79, 982.00) was disallowed. (vii) Therefore, the depreciation allowable was Rs. 80,18,011.00 (Rs. 1

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares were issued then, balance amount will be treated as distribution of income to shareholder

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

vi), ‘immovable property’ shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of Section 269-UA;” 10. Section 45 of the Act reads as follows: “45. Capital gains.—(1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in Sections

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

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

capital. The allegation against the company is in relation to cash deposits of total 6 Rs.13,79,10,500/- soon after demonetization on 08.11.2016. The satisfaction note prepared by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1, Jalpaiguri was approved by Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit- 5, Kolkata and further approved by DGIT (Investigation), Kolkata on 07.08.2018. The High Court also quoted

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

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 was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68,276/-. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

vi) capital gains. The scheme of the Act is that income tax is one tax. Section 6   only   classifies   the   taxable   income   under different   heads   for   the   purpose   of computation   of   the   net   income   of   the assessee.   Though   for   the   purpose   of computation   of   the   income,   interest   on securities is separately classified, income by way of interest from securities does

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before examining the contentions made on the both sides, it will be necessary to set out the Finance Act, 1994 insofar as it pertains to the levy of service tax. 10. Section 64. Extent, commencement and application. (1) This Chapter extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu

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

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