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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

1) and Sub-Section (3) of Section 37 and if any expenditure or allowance was made allowable in other sections of the Act, the same could not be withdrawn or denied to the assessee because of the prohibitory provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 37. A similar view appears to have been expressed by the Gujarat High Court

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

disallowances, relying heavily on the legislative intent and the definition of "long-term finance" in the Explanation to Section 36(1)(viii). This view was subsequently affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and finally by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2011. C. Findings of the High Court 6. The High Court affirmed the findings

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 BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

disallowed it under the income under   the   head   “interest   on   securities”.     The   Appellate Tribunal confirmed the view. This Court, in paragraphs nos. 3 to 7, held thus:  “3. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the   income   from   business   and   securities   fell under different heads, namely, Section 10 and Section 8 of the Act respectively, that they were mutually   exclusive

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

197, the copy of the statement of taxable income of the assessee for the AY 2001-02 has been filed, which shows that in the year in which the debentures were redeemed, the assessee did not claim any deduction for the interest. It has thus been proved in the present case that the payment of interest by conversion

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

197/- on account of DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- on account of receipts under the Duty Drawback. 2.2 The assessee credited the receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account and claimed the same as “Profit / gains of business / profession” under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act, 1961. The assessee was issued