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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

price of shares. Therefore, in the mechanism of capital gains computation, what is relevant is not only the sale of shares but also the purchase of shares. Thus, the entire transaction of acquisition as well as sale 14 of shares, as a whole, is required to be examined, and a dissecting approach by examining only the sale of shares

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

price per share on 6th January, 1992, was Rs.425/-, resulting in a loss of Rs.200/- per share. Consequently, the capital loss suffered by the assessee was Rs.3,00,000/- [1500 x 200] as against the receipt of Rs.56,250/- on renunciation of 1875 PCDs. To complete the chronology of events, on 7th August, 1991, assessee sold 8460 equity shares

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

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

capital gains”. After referring to the meaning given to “transfer” by Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, the Court held: “Here, a regular ‘sale’ itself has taken place. That is the ordinary concept of transfer. The company paid the price

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

transferred was agricultural land. In Cardamom case (supra) the only argument urged was that capital gains were not part of the business profits, and therefore, could not be taken into account in reckoning the distributable income. This contention was rejected by the Kerala High Court by pointing out that section 109(i), while defining "distributable income", specifically takes

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

The appeal is allowed

capital gains. The report was filed in the prescribed form. All the required particulars/ information were furnished. In the said report, description of the property, location thereof, whether situated in residential/commercial/mixed/industrial area, and classification thereof were shown. As regard, proximity to civic amenities, it was stated that the plot is very close to "Raj Bhawan". All other amenities except cinema

ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT V. PATEL

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue   alternatively   contended   that   the   case   of   the Respondent should come under

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

gains from: (1) Investments in (a) securities of the nature  referred  to   in  Section  8  of  the Indian Income Tax Act; or (b) property of the  nature   referred   to  in   Section   9  of that Act; (2) dividends, or      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 31 of 45 (3)   the   ‘other   sources’   referred   to   in Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm’s length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. EQUINOX SOLUTION PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

price and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act could not be applied to such sale. He held that it was not a case of sale of any individual or one block asset which may attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act. He then examined the case of the assessee in the context

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws 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

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

Appeals are disposed of

Capital gains”. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge. Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by Section 45 must fall under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., the principle

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

transfer to the copy/copies any copyright or other marking on the Software or Documentation. d) not use the Software or Documentation for any other purpose than permitted in this Article 20, License or sell or in any manner alienate or part with its possession. e) not use or transfer the Software and/or the Documentation outside India without the written consent

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

capital, and the gain from foreign exchange fluctuation comes within the permissible deduction of Section 80 HHC of the Act. He places strong reliance on Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta1 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd2. The Learned Counsel also places reliance on Commissioner of Income

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

price of such goods; (e) "indirect costs" means costs, not being direct costs, allocated in the ratio of the export turnover in respect of trading goods to the total turnover; (f) "trading goods" means goods which are not manufactured or processed by the assessee. (3A) For the purposes of sub-section (1A), profits derived by a supporting manufacturer from

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

price for the auction was fixed at Rs.30 crores, as mentioned in the order of 14th June, 1991 passed by the High Court. According to learned counsel for the Revenue, MGBW was already the owner of the trademarks, copyrights and technical know-how and essentially the rights in the intellectual property might be included in goodwill, but these were