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

transfer for the purposes of s. 12B, but as soon as there was a sale of the capital assets and profits or gains arose therefrom, the liability to tax also arose, whether the sale was by the administrator or by the legate. Sri Kannan Rice Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, (1954) 26 I.T.R. 351; Commissioner of Income

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

250, 260] this Court held that both Section 26(2) and the proviso thereto dealt only   with   profits   and   gains   of   a   business, profession, or vocation and they did not provide for the assessment of income under any other head   e.g.   capital   gains.   The   reason   for   that conclusion is stated thus: “It (the deeming clause in Section 12­B) only introduces

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

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

The appeals are allowed and the

250 bonus shares on original holding after January 1, 1954. It further got 22,500 right shares for the nominal value of Rs. 3,60,000. The assessee sold 15,000 shares during the assessment year 1962-63 and the sale price realized was Rs. 4,54,130/-. The assessee calculated the cost price of 15,000 shares sold

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS vs. TELEVISION & COMPONENTS LTD.

price of NEC model TDMs were also sought to be relied upon by the respondents. The basis of the argument was never established and was contrary to the evidence. (21). Firstly, the respondent No. 1 utilised the letter of credit to import 500 sets of TDMs from M/s Mohan Impex @ S$ 260 per set and 3000 sets of TDMs

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

250 ITR 369 and the reasoning given by this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. R.C. Jain and others - 1981 (2) SCC 308. According to learned counsel, even after the amendment to Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act, by inserting the Explanation thereto, the AMC(s) continues to be covered by Item

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. AJAX PRODUCTS LTD. THROUGH ITS LIQUIDATOR

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

price higher than the written down value. The Income-tax Officer taxed the surplus in the assessment year 1956-57invoking the proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. His order in this respect was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioners well as by the Appellate Tribunal. However the High ,Court held that since there

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

250/- per trip. 5.1. On verifying the contents of record placed before him, the AO observed that while making payment to the truck operators/owners, the appellant had not deducted tax at source even if the net payment exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. Following this, a notice dated 05.11.2007 was issued to the appellant, requiring the details of amount paid

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. SRI MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. & ORS

250 4. Meenakshi Mills 5,972 5. Rajendra Mills 3,009 6. Saroja Mills 4,177 All the three assessee companies borrowed moneys from the Madurai branch of the bank and on the security of the fixed deposits made by their branches with the Pudukottai branch of the Bank. It is the admitted case that the loans granted