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

capital gains, once this Court has recognized that amalgamation entails a transfer, that conclusion cannot be ignored while considering the ambit of Section 28. 16.4. The real question, therefore, is whether an amalgamation – though, in company law, it operates as a statutory substitution of rights – nonetheless gives 36 rise to taxable business profits under Section

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

90% 5 Dividend declared by Nil Nil the assessee company 6 Debit balance in profit Rs. 91,472 Rs.20,508 and loss account 7 Capital reserve shown in Rs.7,45,109 Rs.7,45,109 the balance-sheet ___________________________________________________________________________ ________ The petitioner’s business of agricultural activities had resulted in losses year after year and the accumulated losses at the commencement

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains. The amount of tax sought to be evaded is worked out as per clause (a) to Explanation 4 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act at 20% of Rs.3,43,90,478 i.e. Rs.68,78,095. Accordingly, a minimum penalty of Rs.68,78,095 is levied under Section

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

90% is expenditure. It was pleaded that when all the authorities including the final fact finding authority as well as the High Court have recorded their concurrent findings on consideration of relevant material, this Court may not disturb those findings. Reliance was placed on Avasarala Technologies Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 1, Bangalore10 and Commissioner

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

90, or section 90A, as the case may be;” “4. Charge of income-tax. (1) Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions (including provisions

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

gains to be computed after making the allowances therein set out. Clause (vi) thereof speaks of allowances in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant, etc., and the proviso (a) to clause (vi) reads thus: "Provided that the prescribed particulars have been duly furnished". In proceedings for the Assessment Year 1955-56, the Income-tax Officer held that depreciation must

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

90, or section 90A, as the case may be.” Income deemed to accrue or arise in India. “Section 9.(1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India- (i) … (ii) Income which falls under the head “Salaries”, if it is earned in India. Explanation.-(Inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with retrospective effect from

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

Capital gains 9,94,680 20,000 Gross total income 10,14,680 Less: Deduction Under section 80HHC [see Note] http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18 Under section 80-I [i.e., 25% of Rs.9,94,680] Net income (rounded off) 5,48,355 2,48,670 2,17,660 Note: Computation of deduction under section 80HHC

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

gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would become taxable income which is not the intention of Section 45Q of the IT Act. That, the said 1998 Directions cannot be taken as an excuse by the NBFC to compute lower taxable income under

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

capital assets, but not by the appellant-Corporation itself. Thus, a conclusion was reached that, in terms of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’) as it stood for the relevant assessment year, any expenditure (except of the prohibited type) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

90,88,115/­ were disallowed under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant herein has filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram and the same   was   dismissed.     The   appellant   carried   the   matter   by   way   of second appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.537/Coch/2018.   The Tribunal has dismissed the ITA Nos.536­537/Coch/2018

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

The appeal is allowed in part and to

capital of the appellant company. In the present situation there is no such connection, which can be said to give rise to a business connection between the permanent establishment in India and the transaction that is sought to be taxed. Yet again in Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. v. CIT Madras [23 ITR 101], in the fact situation obtaining therein

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 vs. M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

90 of the Act. This notice was duly replied to by the assessee. However, the PCIT rejected all the contentions raised by the assessee inter alia holding that Article 25 of Omani tax laws is not applicable in the instant case because there is tax payable on dividend in Oman and, accordingly, no tax has been paid and that assessee