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

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

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

short, “the I.T. Act” 4 and 03.10.1996 of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Punjab & Haryana respectively, under Sections 391 – 394 of the Companies Act, 2013, JFAL was amalgamated with JSL. As per the sanctioned scheme, the appointed date of amalgamation was 01.04.1995, and the orders sanctioning the amalgamation were filed with the Registrar of Companies

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

short term capital assets. On the second contention, as to whether capital gains, not being commercial profits in the strict sense, could be treated as part of the gross total income for the purpose of distribution of dividends, there is apparent divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts. In CIT v. Gannon Dunkerley

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

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

short term or 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

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

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

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm’s length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital of CDBL listed in the Bombay and Delhi Stock Exchanges. The break-up of the shares held by the family members of the appellant and the appellant himself are as follows: Name of the Shareholder Number of Shares held in CDBL Shiv Raj Gupta (Appellant) 38,999 Jayant Gupta (Appellant’s Son) 44,658 Roopa Gupta (Appellant’s Daughter

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

transfer shall be deemed to be export out of India of such goods and merchandise and the value of such goods or merchandise declared in the shipping bill or bill of export as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed

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

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

short, “the Act”. 2. The Assessing Officer (AO), by the assessment order dated 10.02.2006, disallowed the deduction claim of Rs. 26,62,927/- and added it to the assessee's taxable income. The case of the Revenue is that gain/profit on account of foreign currency fluctuations in the Exchange Earners Foreign Currency (EEFC) account cannot be attributed as an earning

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

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

terms of Section 35A and 35AB of the Act? iii) Whether the Tribunal had erred in directing the Assessing Officer 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT to capitalize the value of trademarks, copyright and technical know-how by treating the same as plant and machinery and grant depreciation therein? 3. In its conclusion, the High Court answered the first two questions

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

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it 4 which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area.” 11. Through the aforementioned amendment