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

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

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 (1), a return

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

terms of sale. According to the impugned judgment, warranty provision was made against the liability which had not crystalised against the appellant and consequently it was a provision made for an unascertained liability and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 37 of the 1961 Act. The case of the Department was accepted by the High

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

terms of section 32 of the Act read with the Rules in the Appendix. [1030 C-E] 2.(a). The expressions used in a taxing statute would ordinarily be understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative animation. [1026 G] 2(b). The Income

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

short, ‘Company’ 2 made by the assessee was found to be not a judicious investment choice from the point of view of a prudent businessman as the company to which loan was provided by the assessee had no established business, no goodwill in the market, nor was it enlisted in any of the stock exchanges, nor did the assessee