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

Appeals are dismissed

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

forward the loss to the subsequent year or years and set off the said loss   against   the   profit   in   the   business.   Be   it noted   that   clause   (2)   of   Section   24,   in contradistinction   to   clause   (1)   thereof,   is concerned only with the business and not with its heads under Section 6 of the Act. Section 24,      Civil Appeal No.3291

M/S.SK.AR.K.AR.SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR&CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

carried forward the said loss to be set off against speculation profits, if any, insubsequent assessment years. The assessee’s appeal to the Appellate Tribunal proved unsuccessful. However, his further appeal to Tribuanl was upheld. Before the Tribunal, the counsel for the assessee conceded that "the transactions in question are speculative transactions within the meaning of the explanation." (The reference

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed accordingly

price of Rs.16,500 to his daughter-in-law and five children. It was not disputed that this sale was an honest and bona fide transaction and that the consideration was in fact Rs.16,500. However, after completion of the assessment for the year 1966-67 in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6 the normal course

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Transfer Pricing Adjustment, Capitalization of Licence Fees, 3G Spectrum Fees, Asset Restoration Cost Obligation including the effect of amalgamation of group entities which required thorough scrutiny and determination. G] During the pendency of said Writ Petition, a letter was issued by the respondent No.1 on 23.07.2018, the relevant portion of which was as under :- "The assessment years for which request

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

loss of Rs. 6.86 crores. It therefore becomes necessary to look at Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The relevant portions of Section 80HHC reads as follows: "80HHC. DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS RETAINED FOR EXPORT BUSINESS. (1) Where an assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India, is engaged

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

The appeal is allowed

prices given in "Accommodation Times" I am of the opinion and feel that the rate of the Residential Apartment in the area in 1981 would be in between Rs.2500 to Rs.3000/- per S.FT. I think that the lower value of Rs.2500 per S.FT. as fair and reasonable. This rate will be fair and reasonable for the share of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

loss basis or that profit shall be proscribed. Even if there is no such express provision, the nature of the charitable purpose, the manner in which the activity for advancing the charitable purpose is being carried on and the surrounding circumstances may clearly indicate that the activity is not propelled by a dominant profit motive. What is necessary

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

carry out the following specific tasks: - a. Purchase the land in contiguous blocks, b. Divide and demarcate the entire land into blocks of 20 to 30 acres, c. Furnish title papers and other necessary documents for the land, 8 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 d. Obtain permissions and approvals from the concerned authorities for land transfer, with

UCO BANK vs. COMM.OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL

carried forward and not treated as profit until actually received." Similarly, referring to interest on doubtful debts, Shukla and Grewal on Advanced Accounts, Ninth Edition at page 1089 state as follows: "Interest on doubtful debts should be debited to the loan account concerned but should not be credited to interest account. Instead, it should be credited to Interest Suspense Account

M/S. SANJEEV WOOLEN MILLS vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

carried forward as the opening balance in the next year’s account. This canceling out of the unsold stock from both sides of the accounts leaves only the transactions on which there have been actual sales and gives a true and actual profit or loss on his year’s dealings." The rationale behind valuation of the stock at "cost

M/S. BANGALORE CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

prices and/or additional contributions which constitute mutual income. 8. The doctrine of mutuality finds its origin in common law. One of the earliest modern judicial statements of the mutuality principle is by Lord Watson in the House of Lords, in 1889, in Styles (Surveyor of Taxes) Vs. New York Life Insurance Co.3 (hereinafter referred to as the “Styles case

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

loss in case his calculations are wrong, and leave them to determine whether the business shall be 20 continued or not. Moreover, it is not enough to consult  only   the   largest  creditors.   There   is   no insolvency within the meaning of this offence if a careful, prudent, and unhurried realization of the assets would produce enough to pay loop

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

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

loss of use of principal. Jersey City v. Zink [Jersey City v. Zink, 44 A 2d 825 : 133 NJ Law 437 (1945)] , A 2d p. 828”. (ii) “Interest” means compensation for the use or forbearance of money. Commr. of Internal Revenue v. Meyer [Commr. of Internal Revenue v. Meyer

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

transfer of the CGP share and not by virtue of various clauses of SPA. In a case like the present one, where the structure has existed for a considerable length of time generating taxable revenues right from 1994 and where the court is satisfied that the transaction satisfies all the parameters of “participation in 66 investment” then in such