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

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

127 of 2015, C.A.No.1435 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 21845 of 2013,   C.A. No. 6313 of 2013,   C.A. No. 

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

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

METTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TEX, MADRAS-1

Appeal is dismissed,

disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income Tax Tribunal, on the further appeal, rejected the claim of the appellant by holding that though the industrial unit ultimately consisted of sixty hooker cells and the rectifier but it had commenced commercial production in the year ended 31.3.1957 and, therefore, the five years

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,JALANDHAR vs. M/S KAY KAY INDUSTRIES

disallowed the deemed MODVAT benefit earlier availed and ordered for recovery of the said sum along with interest, and, further imposed penalty of Rs.40,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jalandhar, who ruled that the credit of deemed duty paid by the manufacturer under Section