Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (8.01 seconds)
Documents citing M.S.P. Nadar Sons, Virudhu Nagar vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), ... on 28 April, 1993

Matrix Partners India Investment ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 29 January, 2025

I.T.A. No.3097/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2020-21 7 Having considered the relevant provisions of law and the DTAA as well as the facts attending to the case, we are of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the assessing officer is legally correct. Because, what we are dealing with is 'capital gains', which would certainly include losses from the same set of asset. Here, the underlying assets are equity shares. We do not agree with the approach of the assessee where transactions of share are given different treatment, one under the DTAA and the other under the provisions of the Act. In our considered opinion, the assessee needs to select between the DTAA and the provisions of Act, and then accordingly both gains and losses are to be taken together for the chosen treatment. We find that the Hon'ble SC in the case of M.S.P. Nadar Sons vs. CIT (Central), Madras 1994 AIR 1298/1993 SCR (3) 446, held that the amount of 'capital gains' during the relevant previous year means the profits derived minus the losses suffered.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.N. Jhunjhunwalla Charity Trust vs Assistant Director Of Income-Tax on 17 January, 1996

12. If we put the facts of the instant case of the tests and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court we find that the ratio of this decision is not applicable to the present case as the assessee had suffered business loss on purchase and sale of share transactions on one hand and has earned long term capital gains on sale of share investments on the other. As there was only one type of capital asset in that case the deduction under section 80T was allowed on the balance arrived at after deducting capital loss from the capital gain but this is not factual position in the instant case as the business loss has occurred on purchase and sale of shares and the long term capital gain on sale of share investment as an asset. Accordingly, in our opinion, this decision also does not help the cause of the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashapurna Buildcon (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 December, 2007

In these circumstances we are not in agreement with learned Departmental Representative that the "requisite satisfaction" is manifest and "inferable" from the assessment order itself. What is required to be recorded is the satisfaction in so many words and failure to do so cannot amount to mere and sheer irregularities. We are not concerned with the irregularities of evidence but we are concerned with a specific note of satisfaction, which is required to initiate penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Sqjjanrqj Nahar v. CIT ; the fact of the above decisions are distinguishable. Moreover, this very Bench has similar conclusion in recent decision in ITA No. 590/Ju/2006 (asst.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Act 1922

ed them as (b) and (c). The existing clause (c) is renum- bered as clause ((1). We have added an explanation to « } ET (1957) 3: I.T.R. 82. .3 *1 . I 1 ~ 323 overcome the 'difficulty introduced by the Madras High Court in Mari Muthu. Nadar v. C.I.T.' V -
Law Commission Report Cites 507 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, ... vs Assistance Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 20 June, 2024

Bay Capital India Fund Limited Further, it is pertinent to note that the matter under examination is a legal issue. As it has been discussed in details above, in view of the binding precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like M.S.P Nadar Sons v CIT [1993] 68 Taxman 152 (SC), CIT v M.S.P Nadar Sons [1989] 43 Taxman 231 (Madras), CIT v VVenkatchalam [Civil Appeal No.3044 of 1983, dated 13.4.1993] and B.M. Kamdar, In re [1946] 14 ITR 10 (Bombay), it is imperative to emphasize that "Capital Gains" as part of "Total Income" for an A.Y. is to be computed as per provisions of the Domestic Act and the during that process, the question of Treaty benefit does not arise, since Treaty does not lay down any computation mechanism.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next