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

92,223 Rs. 20,612 have been declared by the company, i.e. 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

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

gains should “arise” from the transfer of a capital asset and income should be computed after full value of the consideration has been received or accrued. Since no income was received or had accrued, as the project was finally terminated by the owners on 15 13.06.2011, it was clear that the High Court judgment was correct. Further, sub-clause

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gain was determined to be Rs.3,09,78,478 by taking the valuation of the 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant as Rs.1,44,92,907 as on 01.04.1981. In view of the said order of assessment, a show cause notice under Section

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains   of business or profession”. Section 56 of the IT Act provides that income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under the IT Act shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “income from other sources” if it is not chargeable to income tax under any of the five heads provided

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

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

92. Since this amount pertains to the previous year 1991-92, it has not been debited to the aforesaid profit and loss account. 3. The company has received Rs.24,90,000 in convertible foreign exchange till September 30, 1993. The company’s application for obtaining extension of time under section 80HHC has been rejected by the Commissioner. 4. During

M. JANARDHANA RAO vs. JT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs

Section 260A of the Act. Suffice it would to only note that the assessees were at some point of time, partners of a partnership firm styled Mangalore Ganesh Beedi works. The said firm which consisted of thirteen partners stood dissolved in terms of the Deed of Partnership with effect from 6.12.1987, by efflux of time. According to the revenue, thereafter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

Section 256(1) the High Court answered the question against the revenue. The High Court by order dated October 25, 1983 answered the question in favour of the assessee relying on its earlier decision reported in C.I.T. v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., (150 I.T.R. 23) Civil Appeal No. 1404 of 1991 The Commissioner of Income Tax ....Appellant . I.D.L. Chemicals

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

92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. By common judgment dated 5.2.07, the High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction in respect of the provision made for warranty claims. It was held that no obligation was ever cast on the date of the sale and consequently there was no accrued liability. According to the impugned

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

92 (paragraph 13). It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision, when a question of law arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, it will not be a substantial question of law. It is submitted that in the present case, the Constitution Bench in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra

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.

92 or 1992-93 and their returns have been filed as individual assessee by them for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, though belatedly on 20.11.1994 and 23.02.1994 respectively. In those returns it was mentioned that accounts of the firm had not been finalized and no returns of the firm had been filed. 4. The Assistant Commissioner

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

92,728.00. 21.4. Learned counsel submits that during the reassessment proceedings assessee sought for return of the books seized by the department. Though some books were returned, the entire seized materials were not returned. As it was an old matter assessee had sought for time to look into the old records and to consult its representative. However, the assessing officer

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS(PREV.), GUJARAT vs. M/S. RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD

92,602/- should not be directed to be paid by the respondent. 11. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The Commissioner (Appeal), in terms of his order dated 5.5.2000 noticed the clauses in the contract for import of machinery and opined that the imported item was a self-propelled modular transport system, stating : “It is seen from the above discussion that