NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

long-term capital asset, then, in addition to the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset, a further deduction, as specified in Section 48(2) of the Act, which is similar to standard deduction, becomes necessary. The basic controversy in this batch of civil appeals concerns the stage at which Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

long-term capital appreciation and investment income. The assessees are regulated by the Financial Services Commission3 in Mauritius and have been granted a Category I Global Business License4 under Section 72(6) of the Financial Services Act, 2007, enacted by the Parliament of Mauritius. 5.1. The business of the assessees, according to them, is wholly controlled and managed by their

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

The appeal is allowed

long term capital loss of Rs.34,12,000/- . The said capital loss was said to have arisen on account of sale of property being land and building known as ’Jekison Niwas’, 220 Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai. Admittedly, the Appellant had 1/4th share therein. It entered into an agreement for sale of undivided 1/4th share in the said property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Long Term Capital Loss as claimed by the appellant in the present case. It transpires that the appellant company invested in total equity share of Rs. 153340900/- at face value of (Rs. 10) on different dates, in its subsidiary company (ANNPL). The total number of shares of ANNPL was 153505750 out of which the assessee's shareholding was 99.88%. Pursuant

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

long drawn litigation with regard to the compensation payable to the appellant. The appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 7,64,787 as compensation towards the acquired land on which an amount of Rs. 2,94,844 became payable as interest. This amount of interest was paid on different dates during February 1973. Since the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. EQUINOX SOLUTION PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

price and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act could not be applied to such sale. He held that it was not a case of sale of any individual or one block asset which may attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act. He then examined the case of the assessee in the context

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

long term depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This gain or profit is charged to tax in the year in which transfer of the capital assets takes 7 place. In the instant case, the fundamental question which arises for consideration before this Court is with regard to the taxability   of   the   amount   received   by   the   Respondent

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

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

capital of such co- operative society out of funds provided by the State Government for the purpose. Explanation.—If any dispute arises as to the primary object or principal business of any co- operative society referred to in clauses (cciv), (ccv) and (ccvi), a determination thereof by the Reserve Bank shall be final; (ccvii) “central co-operative bank”, “primary rural

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

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

terms: “1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

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

price of such goods; (e) "indirect costs" means costs, not being direct costs, allocated in the ratio of the export turnover in respect of trading goods to the total turnover; (f) "trading goods" means goods which are not manufactured or processed by the assessee. (3A) For the purposes of sub-section (1A), profits derived by a supporting manufacturer from

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

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

Transfer of Property Act, a carrier who clings on to possession not only without having a shadow of a right, but what is more, both contrary to the contract as also the law cannot be found to be the owner. The possession of the carrier who deliberately refuses to act under the contract but contrary to it, is not only

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

termed as a commercial activity. This was the principal idea in omitting Section13(1)(bb) as it was considered as restrictive for carrying out such activities. It was argued that, substitution of the definition of “charitable purpose” in Section 2(15) by the Finance Act, 2008 has not changed the law. The words “in relation to any trade, commerce

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

price of services they supply, i.e., renting/leasing/letting out, etc. Further, CGST is leviable on the supply of these services, resulting in tax on tax or the cascading effect of tax. Moreover, due to the denial of ITC, the assessees have to bear the tax burden. Thus, the interpretation put by revenue to clauses (c) and (d) of Section

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