CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

119(2)(b) read with CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2015.  11 2.20 Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Division Bench, the Appellants   have   filed   the   present   common   Civil Appeals on 09.08.2019 before this Court. 3.   We have heard Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Counsel appearing for the   Appellants,   and   Mr.   Arijit   Prasad,   Senior   Advocate appearing   for   the   Department.   We   have

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS xxx xxx xxx Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly - You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law nothwithstanding this limitation.” “4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

C) NO. 4063 OF 2020) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 2 ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S. MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave to appeal granted. With consent of counsels, this appeal was heard finally. This appeal arises from an order1 of the Delhi High Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

119   of   2015,   C.A. No. 116   of 2015,  C.A. No. 194  of  2015,  C.A. No. 114  of  2015,  C.A. No. 120  of  2015,  C.A. No. 7395  of  2012, C.A. No. 7394  of  2012, C.A.   No.   121     of     2015,     C.A.   No.   122     of     2015,     C.A. Nos.1430­1432 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 8507­

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

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

disallowing the deductions claimed under Section 80-IB of the Act, 1961. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 3 of 36 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court

M/S.L.R.BROTHERS,INDO FLORA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

119(1994)EOB/34/94 dated 04.5.94, issued by Govt.   of   India,   Ministry   of   Industries,   Department   of Industrial   Development,   Secretarial   for   Industrial approval, MUCC Section, New Delhi, the bonding period of M/s. L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd., was fixed for 10 years during which they were required to achieve 62% value   addition   over   and   above   the   imports   and   other factors contributing towards

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. vs. COMNR OF INCOME TAX

disallowing certain deductions claimed by the appellant on various grounds. Against the assessment order of the ITO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by an order made on October 27, 1976 partly allowed the same. By the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both the Revenue and the assessee preferred second appeals before the Income

S.A. BUILDERS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

C) 21707- 21710/2004], we shall be taking note of the facts of this case. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 13.5.2004 in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 6, 7, 119 and 120 of 2003, and the judgment dated 21.5.2004 in ITA No. 117/118 of 2003. Heard learned counsel