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

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

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 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

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

set off against capital gains in a subsequent year. While considering this question, it was held as follows: "From the charging provision of the Act, it is discernible that the words "income" or "profits and gains" should be understood as including losses

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

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

set aside the assessment order passed by the AO with a direction to the AO to recompute the capital gains of the assessee in consonance with the provisions of the IT Act as discussed in the order. 3.4 The assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”) by way of filing ITA No.16/MUM/2012 against the order passed

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

gains. 8. To find out whether an expenditure is on the capital account or on revenue, one must consider the expenditure in relation to the business. Since all payments reduce capital in the ultimate analysis, one is apt to consider a loss as amounting to a loss capital. But this is not true of all losses, because losses

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

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

M/S SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

loss computed in relation to speculation business carried on by an assessee can only be set off against the profits and gains of another speculation business. The Explanation to Section 73 contains a deeming fiction where certain businesses shall, for the purposes of the section, be deemed to be speculation businesses. The Explanation also carves out an exception in respect

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 and disallowance under rule 6D as these disputed issues were never determined by the Assessing Officer. The Designated Authority had assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 33,65,298.00 only on the basis of KVSS and that he could not have worked out the assessable income as he Assessing Officer had not yet determined the income

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital gain in the hands of the respondent-assessee as part of the full value of sale consideration paid for transfer of shares. This finding would clearly be in the teeth of Section 260-A (4), requiring the judgment to be set aside on this score. 15. Coming to the merits, the High Court found: “22. …No doubt, market price

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

loss. To invoke the provisions of section 43B, on the imaginary ground that there is no actual payment of the interest, would be wholly misplaced and would amount to a strained interpretation of the section.” 7. Against the aforesaid judgment of the ITAT, the Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court, in which the question raised before the High

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR

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

gain   or   business   income.   This   is Page 17 of 44 without prejudice to the submission that the Assessing Officer has correctly assessed the income   in   his   Assessment   Order   dated 29.11.2011.  4.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the order passed by the ITAT as well as the High Court   be   set   aside