VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

56 alone, income, profits and gains must be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with Section 28. Therefore, Section 145(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head “Capital gains”, as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand. ...12/- 12 - COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD “CAPITAL GAINS As per assessee

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

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

x) Mr. Rajiv Jain in his statement dated 15th March, 1990 confirmed that cheque books and pass books were found at the office of Mr. Rattan Gupta and so is the case with rubber stamps and blank printed letter heads; xi) Mr. Ravinder Singh in his statement confirmed that he had been looking after the day-to-day affairs

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

depreciation. From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern. Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is primarily about identifying and combating