RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

set of facts, the liability to tax for capital gains arose on the date of award, the High Court referred to various decisions on relating back, of the possession previously taken, to the date envisaged by the Act of 1894; and took guidance, inter alia, from the following enunciation by this Court in the case of Lt. Governor of Himachal

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

gains and the identification of the beneficial owner, upon piercing the corporate veil, had already been determined. In light of the same, and in the absence of any change in factual circumstances, the CIT had urged the AAR to reject the applications made by the respondents. The High Court observed that the tone and tenor of 13 For short

MISS DHUN DADABHOY KAPADIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

gain. Immediatelybefore the renouncement, the old share, were valued at Rs. 253.00 per share. After renouncement the price of the old shares fell to Rs. 198.75as a result of which, the assessee suffered a capital loss of about Rs. 38,000. ’Me assessee claimed a set

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

loss by the amount of statutory deduction under Section 48(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is this calculation which is the subject-matter of challenge by the assessee(s) in this batch of civil appeals. To answer the above question, we need to quote hereinbelow the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short

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

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

set off the loss against the paid-up equity share capital. The High Court ordered for a reduction in the share capital of the company from 15,35,05,750 shares to 10,000 shares. Consequently, the share of the assessee was reduced proportionately from 15,33,40,900 shares to 9,988 shares. However, the face value of shares

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

setting off of the   same   against   the   profit   or   gains   of   the assessee   from   the   same   business   in   the subsequent   year   or   years   The   crucial   words, therefore, are “profits and gains of the assessee from   the   same   business”   i.e.   the   business   in regard   to   which   he   sustained   loss   in   the previous   year.  The   question,   therefore,   is whether   the   securities   formed

GARDEN SILK WEAVING FACTORY, SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals for both the assessment years

capital loss etc. which, to avoid unnecessary complications and confusion, we shall leave out of account). Thus if, in any particular assessment year, an assessee has incurred a loss under the head "business", this loss can be set off against the income earned by the assessee during that previous year under other heads. Thus, for example, if an assessee

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

gains are distributed at less than the statutory percentage of distributable income; second, that having regard to the losses incurred by the company in earlier years, or due to the smallness of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6 the profits made in the previous year, the payment of dividend or a larger dividend than that declared

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY vs. CHUGANDAS AND CO., BOMBAY

setting off of the loss falling under the head "capital gains" against any capital gains falling under the same head

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

loss of Rs. 78/- on the sale of this property. This the assessee did on revaluing the property as on January 1, 1954. The assessee sold its Mangalore building for Rs. 2,25,000/-. Its original cost as adjusted came to Rs. 76,680/-. IN respect of these buildings also depreciation has been claimed and allowed in the previous years

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

loss of the managing agency of the two mills. On September 30, 1946, the assessee company wrote to the Dalmia Company accepting the offers made, subject to a condition which is not material for our purpose. On the same date, the Dalmia Company received the acceptance of the offers made by it and sent two drafts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

set off for loss tainted with patent illegality, against the income, source of which was not shown to be illegal or it treated the loss by confiscation as capital loss and, therefore, was reluctant to deduct the same from the income from capital gains

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

losses, its reasoning underscores that real income under Section 28 may accrue without any conventional “transfer”. 22 (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC) 23 (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC) 24 (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) 31 15.3. It therefore emerges that Section 28 is a comprehensive charging provision designed to bring within the tax net all real profits and gains arising

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

set off against the long term capital gains of the current assessment year before deduction contemplated by Section 80-T is to be given only for the amount of long term capital gains of the current assessment year after the long term capital loss

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

gains payable in respect thereof had not been established. We are unable to accept this contentions. Accordingly so far as the first and last items in the referred question are concerned the answer would be that only the sum of Rs. 2,47,921 was includible in the accumulated profits within the meaning of section 2(6A) (c) . Regarding items

SHEKHAWATI GENERAL TRADERS LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE I, JAIPUR

The appeals are allowed and the

set out the facts of this case in detail in order to demonstrate that that decision was not at all apposite for the purpose of deciding the point which has arisen in the present case. No question arose there of the calculation of the capital gain or loss

VANIA SILK MILLS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the’ appeal succeeds and the impugned

capital asset. That the receipt of his share in the asset brings about automatically the extin- guishment of the shareholder’s rights in the asset cannot, however, be gainsaid. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in R.M. Amin’s case (supra) was appealed against and this Court while approving’ the ratio of the said decision fur- ther explained