M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

house property, lawfully otherwise, and falls short of ownership only for want of a formal conveyance as 72 required under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, a carrier who clings on to possession not only without having a shadow of a right, but what is more, both contrary to the contract as also the law cannot be found

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

exemption; the High court has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Banks have also adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revenue in support of their contention that the appellant is a local authority within the meaning of Section 10 sub-section

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

exemption. 35. In Chirakkal [384 ITR 490] the Division Bench expressed a divergent opinion, without noticing the law laid down in 6 Antony Pattukulangara [2012 (3) KHC 726] and Perinthalmanna [363 ITR 268]. Moreover, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Chirakkal [384 ITR 490] is not good law, since, in view of the law laid down

M/S NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS(41)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

house property” or “Income from other sources” is exempt from income­tax.”   15. In Paragraph 3 of the circular, it was stated

AKBAR BADRUDDIN JIWANI vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

houses, buildings, or works which would otherwise have been unnecessarily enumerated." It has been secondly submitted on behalf of the appel- lant that the general principle of interpretation of tariff entries occurring in a tax statute is that of commercial nomenclature or understanding in the trade. It is also a settled legal position that the said doctrine of commercial nomenclature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

exemption under Section 11 from AY 1979-80 to 1990-91. During AY 1991-92, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) denied the exemption on the ground that it was carrying on business. That order was eventually set aside by the ITAT which, held that it was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, an amendment was brought

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Housing Boards etc. to become taxable”. The deletion of authorities, which were enumerated in Section 10(20A) was a clear indicator that such authorities, which were enjoying exemption under Section 10(20A) shall no longer be entitled to enjoy the exemption henceforth. The deletion of Section 10(20A) thus has to be given a purpose and meaning. 34. This Court

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

house properties or different securities etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW. vs. U.P. FOREST CORPORATION

Appeals are allowed

exemption under Section 10(20) the Act. The said sub-clause reads as under: "The income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Housing   and   Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT [(1961) 42 ITR 49] support the contention of the Revenue. There, a company, which was incorporated with the   objects   of   buying   and   developing   landed properties   and   promoting   and   developing markets,   purchased   10   bighas   of   land   in   the town of Calcutta and set up a market therein. The question was whether the income

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

house property, Profit & Gains of business or profession, Capital Gains & Income from other sources. The Section 14A relates to expenditure incurred in relation to income which are not includable in Total Income and which are exempted

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

exempted which are not to be included and these are mentioned in Section 10 of the Act. 8) Section 14 of the Act is the next provision which is relevant for these appeals. It is the first provision in Chapter IV which is titled ‘computation of total income’ and, obviously, contains the provision for computation of total income. Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI vs. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD

House Property; (iii) Profits and Gains of Business or Profession; (iv) Capital Gains and (v) Income from Other Sources. Thereafter, manner of computation of the income under the aforesaid heads is stipulated in various sections falling under Chapter IV. As far as Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession is concerned, Sections 28 to 44DB

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it 4 which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area.” 11. Through

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

house property; (D) Profits and gains and business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) Income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income tax under

K. RAMULLAN vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

house property and investments in banks in India. For the Assessment Years 1983-84 and 1984-85, he claimed that the interest accrued on credit balance in his Non- Resident (External) Account cannot be included in computing his total income in view of the provisions of Section 10(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the I.T.Act). During

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Housing Development Company Ltd. (THDC). Under the JDA, it was agreed that HASH and THDC viz., the developers, will undertake to develop 21.2 acres of land owned and registered in the name of the society. The agreed consideration was to be disbursed by THDC through HASH to each individual member of the society, and different amounts and flats were payable

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD vs. SOLID & CORRECT ENGG. WORKS

In the result we allow these appeals, set aside orders

Bench: We Formulate The Precise Questions That Fall For Our Determination, It Is Necessary To Briefly Set Out The Factual Backdrop In Which The Same Arises. 2. M/S Solid & Correct Engineering Works, M/S Solid Steel Plant Manufacturers & M/S Solmec Earthmovers Equipment Are Partnership Concerns Engaged In The Manufacture Of Parts & Components For Road & Civil Construction Machinery & Equipments Like Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plants & Asphalt Paver Machine Etc. M/S Solex Electronics Equipments Is, However, A Proprietary Concern Engaged In The Manufacture Of Electronic Control Panels Boards. It Is Not In Dispute That The Three Partnership Concerns Mentioned Above Are Registered With Central Excise Department Nor Is It Disputed That The Proprietary Concern Is A Small Scale Industrial Unit That Is Availing Exemption From 2

exemption having regard to the fact that the size of the stickers giving the 7 brand name of the manufacturing units was bigger than that of Solidmec the marketing company. The plea of limitation raised by the respondents was, however, left undecided by the Tribunal keeping in view the fact that the erection of plants by Solidmec