PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

disallowing the claim of the   assessee.   On   appeal   to   the Tribunal,   the   Tribunal   held   that   the Gujarat   high   court’s   judgment   in Lakhanpal   National   Ltd.’s   case   [1986] 162   ITR   240   was   distinguishable   and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of  Income­tax.  On an  application  made under section 256(1) of the Act at the instance of the appellant­assessee

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowed the claim for deduction by the appellant essentially with the finding that the appellant was merely a marine product procuring agent for the foreign enterprises, without any claim for expertise capable of being used abroad rather than in India and hence, the alleged services do not qualify as the ‘services rendered from India’, for the purpose of Section

M/S. B.P.L. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

disallowing the benefit of the notification to the Defibrillator thereby concurring with the view of the Technical Member. 11) This is how the matter has come up to this court in the form of present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35 L(b) of the Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 7 of 19 Page

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD. HUMBLI

1 of 2 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 336 of 2001 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Central Excise,Belgaum RESPONDENT: M/s Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA, Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T KAPADIA, J. This is an appeal filed by the revenue under section