Advanced Search Results

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Brindavan Beverages Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(14), 2(19AA), 2(42C), 41[2], 45, 48, 50B, 80IA(4), 80IB(4), 80IB(5), 80HHC, 80HHC(3), 80HHC(3A), 80HHC(4), 80HHC(4A), 115A, 115B, 115BB, 115C, 115J, 115JA, 115JA[1], 115JA[2], 115JA[4], 115JB, 143(2), 161[1A], 164, 164A, 207, 208, 209, 209[1], 210, 211, 215, 234, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234G, 254(2) and 260A; Finance [No. 2] Act, 1996; Finance Act, 1997; Finance Act, 1998; Finance Act, 1999; Finance Act, 2000 - Sections 2; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 210; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 3(1) and 17(1); Constitution of India - Article 141

Reported in : (2010)228CTR(Kar)1; [2010]186TAXMAN233(Kar)

in Sub-section 42-C of Section 2 of the Act only with effect from 1-4-2000, as inserted by the Finance Act 1999 and which reads as under:2(42-C) 'Slump sale' means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result … generalization that, in all situations of slump sale, computation provision for ascertainment of capital gains in terms of Section 48 of the Act is not workable, for the reason that one of the two amounts viz., full value

Pnb Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-i, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 41(2), 45, 48, 49, 50, 55(2) and 256(1); Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; Finance Act, 1999 - Sections 50B

Reported in : [2008]307ITR75(SC); JT2008(12)SC493; 2008AIRSCW7755

cost of acquisition.5. Incidentally, it may be noted that by an amendment to Section 50B inserted by the Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1.4.2000, cost of acquisition is now notionally fixed in case of 'slump' sale. Under the said arrangement, … corresponding to the assessment year 1970-71.4. During the assessment year 1970-71, appellant had to compute capital gains under Section 48 by deducting from the sale consideration the cost of acquisition as increased by the cost of improvement and

Cairn Uk Holdings Limited Vs. Director of Income-tax

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

the object of the provision, was rejected by referring to:(a) Paragraph 41 of the explanatory notes of the Finance Act, 1999 and emphasis was laid on the words ―all assessees‖ paragraph 41. Proviso to Section 112(1) was not intended … gain of US$ 85,584,251 in the hands of the petitioner, after applying the benefit under first proviso to Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). The question raised relates to the rate of tax

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Kumar Giri

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)103TTJ(Chennai)352

above clauses are outside the purview of the non-compete agreement entered by the assessee.11. The amendment in the Finance Act, 2002 proves that the above clauses are not applicable to the assessee's case and Section 28(va) is applicable … the provisions of Section 28(ii). (iii) The learned GIT(A) should have appreciated that the agreement dt. 16th April, 1999 or thereabouts was in substance only a cloak to cover the payment of Rs. 57.84 crores to the … the said amendment having been specifically made for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 dealing with the cost in relation to a capital asset

industrial Machinery Associates Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2002)81ITD482(Ahd.)

beyond the purview of taxation under Section 45. The learned counsel argued that Section 50B introduced by the Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1st April, 2000 brought the transaction of slump sale within the purview of capital gains under Section … AO and held that the computation of capital gain is in accordance with the computation provision contained under Section 48 of the IT Act and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C.

Coromandel Fertilisers Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)90ITD344(Hyd.)

has brought in the necessary amendment under Section 43(6) (c) (i) (C) with effect from 1.4.2000 by the Finance Act, 1999. Section 43(6) (c) (i) (C) provides for the decrease, in a slump sale, of the w.d.v. of the assets … as the date and cost of the asset and of its improvement are indeterminate for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act, determination of capital gains on the transfer is not possible and, therefore, no tax is

Timken France Sas Vs. Director of Income-tax (international Taxation) ...

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Subject : Direct Taxation

proviso to section 48.” Proviso to Section 112(1) 10. The proviso to section 112(1) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1.4.2000. The background for introducing the proviso will be adverted to later. Prior to the

Timken France Sas Vs. Director of Income-tax

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2008)BusLR60

available in the first proviso to Section 48." 10. The proviso to Section 112(1) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1.4.2000. The background for introducing the proviso will be adverted to later. Prior to the

In Re: Universities

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)194CTRAAR289

Superannuation Scheme Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 45(1), 48, 112, 112(1), 115I, 115O, 115AD, 115AD(3) and 245(1); Finance Act, 1999; Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004; Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 - Section 2Union of India v. A. Sanyasi

Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited as Trustee of Universities ...

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Subject : Land Acquisition

It needs to be mentioned here that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 112 (inserted by the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. 1.4.2000), extends the benefits of limiting the rate of tax to 10% in respect of any income … The case of the applicant is that had it the option of computation under the second proviso to section 48 as against Section 115AD(3) of the Act, the capital loss would have worked out to INR 17,38,75,450/- and