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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee discharge the burden of proof that lay on it in support of the claim for Rs.7,75,602/-? 4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in allowing the expenditure of Rs.22

CHANDRAKANT KRISHNARAO PRADHANAND ANOTHER vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAYAND OTHERS

3,000 in cash or securities and a solvent surety for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The surety is required to execute’ a separate bond in, Form ’D’. A proviso added to the ’Rule says that the security may be: increased or, decreased by the Customs--collector at any time, should he, consider it necessary to do so, having

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