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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

124 ITR 41. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal. 3. Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3.1 Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue

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

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

124 of 2015,  C.A. No. 1101 of 2013, C.A. No. 129 of 2015,  C.A. No. 125 of 2015,    C.A. No. 127 of 2015, C.A.No

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

2) of Section 80B, or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India in respect of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively on \026 i) advertisement, publicity and sales promotion outside India in respect of the goods, services or facilities which the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business; ii) running and maintenance

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 6 7.2. Following assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed assessment order dated 19.03.2004 wherein it was noted that by making payment of Rs. 3 crores to L&T, assessee could ward of competition in business. The object of making such payment to L&T was to derive an advantage by eliminating competition

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 32(2) of the Act for the Assessment Years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1999-2000. FACTS: 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the appeals are set out hereinunder: a. Appellant is a non-resident company incorporated in France and is engaged in oil drilling activities. In 1983, the appellant was awarded a 10-year contract for drilling operations

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR vs. M/S. HIRA CEMENT

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the

2 of 7 shall be applicable to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or of the State Khadi and Village Industries Board." "Brand name" or "trade name" has been defined in Explanation IX of the said notification

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

2 for short, “CIT(A)” 3 for short, “ITAT” 4 (1997) 7 SCC 489 3 fluctuation   can   be   regarded   as   revenue   expenditure   or   capital expenditure  incurred  by the   appellant,  and  answered the  same in favour   of   the   appellant   by   holding   that   it   would   be   a   case   of expenditure on revenue account and an allowable deduction.   The ITAT answered the same