COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

x. CIT’s direction to the Assessing Officer to initiate action under Section 148 of the Act for the earlier and subsequent years was illegal and bad in law, and, thus, the proceedings so initiated were also illegal, bad in law and were liable to be quashed. 18. Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

24,212 x 259 100 55,01,710 Rs.1,86,95,854 TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (A1+A2) Rs. 11,62,50,244 III Short-term Capital gain on transfer of movable (depreciable asset) u/s. 50 4.4% of Rs.12,73,55,600 Rs. 56,03,646 Less Value / w.d.v. in the beginning of accounting year – 31.03.1994 13.843% of Rs.15

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

2. The Government agrees that for the purposes of the calculation of depreciation allowance, the cost of capital assets imported before the date of devaluation should be written off to the extent of the full amount of the additional rupee liability incurred on account of devaluation and not what is actually paid from year to year. The 22 proposed legal

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.16(2) vs. M/S TECHSPAN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TECHSPAN INDIA LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

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

24 (Calcutta High Court Judgment); and x) Universal Cargo Carriers Inc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal. 385 (Calcutta High Court Judgment) 4.3 Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted as under: a) Holding lands, receipt of payments and carrying on trade is of no consequence as long as the control of the commercial venture

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

2(m) of the said Act defined net wealth as being predicated with reference to assets “belonging to” the assessee. The assessee in the said case had sold out the property without executing the sale deed. The possession was 13 1986 (supp.) SCC 700 48 handed over to the buyer after receiving full consideration. The Court notices the following statement

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

24 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 and Another 27, the aim of the Parliament was to codify a legislation that would bring the entire insolvency and bankruptcy regime under one umbrella and speed up the process. 26. The Statement of the Objects and Reasons that prevailed upon the legislature to enact

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

x) CIT v. Ramani Relators (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Mad. 12717. It is submitted that therefore on the principle of stare decisis, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. 4.11 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Revenue that Section 10B is an exemption provision

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

depreciation, the taxable income of the Assessee was NIL and hence, there was no tax liability. According to Assessee, in such a case no penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could have been levied. 16. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Special Range-2, C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 7 Surat, on the basis of the discussion

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

2) … Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "mineral oil" includes petroleum and natural gas.” 11. Section 42 is a special provision applicable to oil contracts. It has to be construed in the background of the PSC. There is a difference between Production Sharing Contracts and Revenue Sharing Contracts. PSCs were put in place in order to enable Sovereign Governments