COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

172/- (profit element)) by order dated 08.02.2008. The assessing officer is of the view that Section 158BE of the Act does not provide for any limitation for issuance of notice and completion of the assessment proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act and therefore a notice could be issued even after completion of the proceedings of the searched person under

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

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH [INDIA] LTD.ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallowed if it falls inter-alia within sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Section 40. The question, therefore, is whether the tax levied under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 falls within the mischief of said sub-clause. We think it does. The preamble to the Surtax Act says that it is "an Act to impose a surtax

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI AND RAJASTHAN vs. M/S. BHARAT CARBON AND RIBBON MANUFACTURING CO

In the result we hold that the answer to the questions

disallowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court on a reference,held in favour of the assessee. In appeal to this Court, HELD : The effect of s. 18(3) of the Indian Independence Act was to change the incidents of the advance tax paid. Previously it was to be adjusted towards a single regular

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

disallowed inclusion of PDI charges and free ASS charges in the assessable value by relying on the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited v. CCE, Delhi-III1 and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the disputed issues in the light of settled legal positions and finalise

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL vs. A. W. FIGGIES & CO., AND OTHERS

172 A firm consisting of three partners, A, B and C, carried on the business of tea brokers and paid income-tax under the Income-tax Act of 1918. There were several changes in the personnel of the partners and in 1939 the firm consisted of C, D and E. C retired and in 1945 a new partnership deed

BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WEST BENGAL-III, CALCUTTA

Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the following question referred to the Calcutta High Court by the Income Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

disallowances of the items in this capitalisation and .a ratio of 80:20 was accepted as the formula for ascertaining the capital. That, however, is not the controversy in this appeal. The point is as to the deductibility of a central subsidy of Rs. 9,97,085 which the assessee had received from the "actual cost" for purposes of calculation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. THE KILKOTAGIRI TEA & COFFEE ESTATE CO. LTD

Section 33A(1)(a). The Tribunal found :- "The Company chose to claim the allowance in respect of 1965 clearing fully, i.e., Rs.30,846/- and in respect of 1967 clearing although they had incurred an expenditure of Rs.89,800/- and entitled to Rs.44,900/-, they restricted the claim to the difference between Rs.40,000/- the total claim for which they