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

JAMES ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR OFTHE ESTATE OF THELATE HENR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY

price was treated by the Income Tax Officer as capital gain under s. 12B of the Income Tax Act. For the assessment year 1947-48 the capital gain was computed by the Income Tax Officer at Rs. 20,13,738 and for the assessment year 1948-49 at Rs. 1,51,963. These amounts of capital gain were brought

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

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

gains", the value consideration received on transfer of the capital asset is to be deducted by the expenditure incurred on the transfer and the cost of acquisition of the capital asset and the cost of any improvement thereon. The expenditure that might have been incurred on the transfer of capital asset and the cost of any improvement thereon

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. MADURAI MILLS CO. LIMITED

capital gain. In the present case there has been no sale of receipt of price but only a distribution of the assets of the companies which had gone into voluntary liquidation. Such a transaction does not amount to sale, exchange, relinquishment or transfer

SHRI KARTIKEYA vs. .SARABHAI. VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset is liable to be taxed under section 45 of the Act. When as a result of the reducing face value of the share, the share capital is reduced, the right of the preference share holder to the divided or his share capital and the right to share in the distribution

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

MISS DHUN DADABHOY KAPADIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

price of the old shares fell to Rs. 198.75as a result of which, the assessee suffered a capital loss of about Rs. 38,000. ’Me assessee claimed a set off of this loss against the capital gain of Rs. 45,262.50. The plea was rejected by the Income-tax Authorities, the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. In appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

capital gain amounting to Rs. 81,81,900 within the meaning of s. 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act?" The High Court answered the question in the negative. The appellant being dissatisfied http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7 with the judgment and order of the High Court asked for and obtained a certificate from

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

prices is not profit of the business, unless such appreciation has been included in the capital gains. The High Court arrived at certain figures of excess profit which was included in the computation of capital gains and held that only that figure was includible in the accumulated profits within the meaning of s. 2(6A) (c). (2) Regarding items

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHIVAKAMI CO. PVT. LTD

transfer is made’, to be taken as the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7 basis for the computation of the capital gains. Therefore, unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price

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

SHEKHAWATI GENERAL TRADERS LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE I, JAIPUR

The appeals are allowed and the

price as on 1-1-1954 in complete disregardof the fact that the same shares had been given bonus shares in the subsequent years after 1-1-54.The Supreme Court had laid down in the case of Dalmia Cement (1964) 52 ITR 567 that while working out the capital gains the cost has to be worked out by averaging cost

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

A.L.A. FIRM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

price prevalent since 1.1.1954 and that, therefore, no capital gains were chargeable to tax. The I.T.O. followed up his letter by a notice under S. 148 read with S. 147(b). The assessee objected to the reassessment on two grounds: (1) that the circumstances did not justify the initiation of proceedings under S. 147(b); and (2) that no assessable