M/S.PREMIER BREVERIES LTD.KARNATAKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

disallowed the entire claim for Rs. 14,36,200/- Page 14 JUDGMENT Page 14 of 18 11. A reading of the questions initially framed and subsequently reframed show that what was done by the High Court is to retain three out of twelve questions, as initially framed, while discarding the rest. Some of the questions discarded by the High Court

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

131, 133, 133A and 285BA. It is submitted that apart from this, the Department keeps getting information relating to assessee from various sources, viz.: (i) Suspicious Transaction Report from the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) (ii) Information from other taxation authorities viz. GST, and Law Enforcement Agencies, viz. ED, etc. (iii) Information from foreign tax jurisdictions under Automatic Exchange of Information

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

disallowance for the non-qualifying services, after taking into consideration the totality of agreement, so that the balance of the royalty/fees, etc., which was for the services covered by Section 80-O, could be exempted. This Circular also clarified that trade enquires will not qualify for deduction under Section 80-O as also technical services rendered in India

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

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

disallowed on the ground that the income from sugar-cane cultivation was agricultural income and not exigible to tax. The Appellate Tribunal found that the cultivation of sugar-cane and the manufacture of sugar by the assessee constituted one single and indivisible business. It was held by this Court that the entire managing agency commission was laid

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

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

131 I.T.R.239), a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the decision of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts and dissented from the view taken by http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 39 the Calcutta High Court. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the question once again in Commissioner of Income

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

Section 31 (3) does not in terms say that the power to vary the assessment including the power to enhance it is subject to ally limitation. We have so far dealt with the questions at issue untrammelled by any authorities. We now turn to such authorities as have been placed before us. We take up first the decision