DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

74 to 76 and 82. He also relied upon a decision in the case of India Cement Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.33 and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors.34. He pointed out that the construction of a complex building intended for sale to a buyer will be treated as a supply of service except where

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

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

disallowed on the ground that in the initial year the industrial unit has been formed by reconstruction or splitting up of the existing unit. The ITAT held that it is not open to the A.O. to doubt the earlier acceptance of the department in respect of reconstruction and splitting up to deny the claim in subsequent year because that violates

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the 'profits of the business computed under Section 80HHC indicated a negative figure'. This view was accepted by all the Courts and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Before this Court, submission of the appellant/assessee was that a reading of Section

B.L. PASSI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (XI)

The appeal is dismissed with no

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

74,090/- received from Sumitomo Corporation of Japan in convertible foreign exchange in the name of M/s Pasco International wherein the Appellant was the sole proprietor. It was further explained that he had received the above amount in convertible foreign exchange as consideration for providing specialized industrial and commercial knowledge relating to the Indian automobile industry including therein the detailed

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

disallowed the claim of the respondent assessee. 5. The respondent assessee aggrieved by the said http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16 order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the respondent assessee was allowed on the ground that the respondent assessee was a small scale industrial unit

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

74,78,526. Manufacturing activities started on 24th March, 1993, i.e. during the accounting year ending on 31st March, 1993 (the assessment year 1993-94). It was specifically pointed out that "the amount of interest received during the public issue of Rs. 1,07,85,590 is not to be considered as income and has been given set off against

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 28.   b. The learned counsel appearing for the assessees pointed out that the view taken by the Bombay High Court in 2 (2002) 258 ITR 601 (Bombay) : 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 944      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 6 of 45 the case of American Express International Banking Corporation2 has been approved by the order dated 12th

MAK DATA P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

disallowed in computing the total income of Page 6 JUDGMENT 6 such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed.” 7. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried away by the plea of the assessee like

RENUKA DATLA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA

74,820/- remained payable. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeal) (referred to as ’CIT(A)’) objecting to the following additions in the assessment order: i) Share of profit from M/s. Raju Investment taken at Rs.6,85,668/- as against Rs.1,85,250/- shown in the return. ii) Unexplained investment in acquisition of jewellery Rs.23

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

disallowing certain expenditure was set aside by orders dated 09.02.1979 and 09.09.1980. 4. Both the orders were questioned by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ’the Tribunal). By reason of an order dated 30.11.1981, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not correct in refusing to accede to the deductions under the aforementioned heads claimed

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. G.C. JAIN

Appeals are dismissed but without any

74 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the Respondents and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on the ground that the Butyl Acrylate Monomer i.e. the chemical imported by the Respondents can safely be held to be an adhesive and was covered by the advance licences produces by the Respondents