COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

260 A of the Act which was registered as Income Tax Appeal No.53 of 2008. The High Court in its order dated 02.09.2008 disposed of the appeal by following its order dated 02.09.2008 passed in the connected ITA No.544 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd). That was an appeal by the revenue

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

transferred as a going concern for slump sale price, in the absence of evidence on record as to how the slump price stood arrived at, section 41(2) had no application. It is interesting to note that the judgment in the case of Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co. is given by the same Bench which decided the case of Artex

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

transfer of shares. This finding would clearly be in the teeth of Section 260-A (4), requiring the judgment to be set aside on this score. 15. Coming to the merits, the High Court found: “22. …No doubt, market price

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transfer pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate

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

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

260(A) of the Act, and through the impugned judgment, the appeal at the instance of Revenue was allowed, resulting in restoring the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act. Hence, the appeal at the instance of the assessee. II. SUBMISSIONS BY PARTIES 3. Mr. V.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee, contends that the assessee

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

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

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

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval

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

transferred a sum of Rs. 6 crores on 01.06.2016 and Rs. 4 crores on 21.06.2016 to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd. The assessee secured the loan by way of a mortgage of the property forming part of Survey No. 31/1-A situated in Village Bambolim, Distt. North Goa. It is an admitted fact that the assessee became the Director

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BILAHARI INVESTMENT P. LTD

Appeals are dismissed

260 ITR 102 in which the matching principle has been discussed threadbare. We quote hereinbelow the said concept from the judgment, which reads as follows: "The mercantile system of accounting is based on http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5 accrual. Basically, it is a Double Entry System of accounting. Under the mercantile system of accounting, profits