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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and “applets” incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights

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

PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the

disallowed even though the said expenditure was less than the expenditure allowable under Section 37(2) of the I.T. Act? 4. Whether there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to hold that the expenditure to the extent of Rs.2,500 at Diners Club and C.C.I. was not laid wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business

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