SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

68 of 1988) during the financial year 2006-07 as “long-term specified asset” for the purpose of the said section.” “Notification No.S.O.964(E), dated 29th June 2006 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of the Explanation to section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

119 ITR 872. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the Order of the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition in R.L. Rajghoria Vs. Income-Tax Officer [1977] 107 ITR 347 held that the word ‘thereon’ appearing in Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 akin to Section 254 (1) of the Income

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered