INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

property 1 2 3 1. Residential   house   which   includes   land and   building   at   No.123.   Big   Street, Kumbakonam. V. Padmavathy 2. Agricultural lands at Thepprumalnallur Village   at   Kumbakonam   as   specified below.  ­do­ 3. Investment   in   the   firm   of   M/s   V.P.V. Prema Jewellery, Kumbakonam.  ­do­ 4. Jewellery   disclosed   under   Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (i.e.) 518 gms of gold and 28 ets. of diamond

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

1) The scheme of Section 32, as discussed above, clearly envisages separate depreciation for a building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. The word “plant” is given inclusive meaning under Section 43(3) which nowhere includes buildings. The Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 68 of 91 Rules prescribing the rates of depreciation specifically provide grant of depreciation

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

property by other persons; 45-IA. Requirement of registration and net owned fund *** *** *** Explanations.-For the purposes of this section,- (I) "net owned fund" means- (a) the aggregate of the paid-up equity capital and free reserves as disclosed in the latest balance-sheet of the company after deducting there from- (i) accumulated balance of loss; (ii) deferred revenue expenditure

RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so.” “5A. Hearing of Objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose

R & B FALCON (A) PTY LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed to the above extent

House of Lords in the matter of R.V. National Asylum Support Service [(2002) 1 W.L.R.2956] and its interpretation of the decision in Pepper v. Hart [(1993) A.C. 593]. on the question of ’executive estoppel’. In the former decision, Lord Steyn stated:- "If exceptionally there is found in the Explanatory Notes a clear assurance by the executive to Parliament about

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

Section 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be made in ascertaining profits taxable under s. 10(1). In Income Tax Commissioner v. Chitnavis [(1932) LR 59 IA 290, 296, 297] the point for decision was whether a bad debt could

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. [(1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680] , per Lord Greene, M.R.)” xx xx xx 82. Bernard Schwartz in Administrative Law, 2nd Edn., p. 584 has this to say: “If the scope of review is too broad, agencies are turned into little more than media for the transmission of cases to the courts. That

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the observations of this Court were as follows: “25. It is evident from the above that the expression “attached to the earth” has three distinct dimensions viz. (a) rooted in the earth as in the case of trees and shrubs, (b) imbedded in the earth as in the case of walls

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

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

1)(f) of the Constitution. No one denies that an evacuee from Pakistan has a residual right in the property that he left in Pakistan. But the real question is, can that right be considered as ownership within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. As mentioned earlier that section seeks to bring to tax income of the property

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

house the contract is one of sale though work and labour are involved in the making and fixing, nor does it matter that ultimately the property was to pass to the War Office under the head contract. As between the plaintiff and the defendants the former passed the property in the goods to the defendants who passed

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

property held under trust”, and held that: “23....Trusts and institutions are separately dealt with in the Act (Section 11 itself and sections 12, 12A and 13, for example). The expressions refer to entities differently constituted. It is thus clear that the newspaper business that is carried on by the Trust does not fall within sub-section (4A). The Trust

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; and (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; (ii) any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking and electronic data

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. G. DAYARAM & CO

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

Section 1(5) of the ESI Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the view expressed by this Court is in consonance with the provisions of the ESI Act and also settled legal principles. Therefore, the said decision does not require re-consideration. 40. The next point to be considered by this Court, in accordance with the reference order, would

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. LUCAS T.V.S. LTD. PADI CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

house; (b) Any office appliances or road transport vehicles; (c) Any ship, machinery or plant in respect of which the deduction by way of development rebate is allowable under section 33; and (d) Any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

Housing Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Another 1995 Supp (1) SCC 50 and Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited 1995 (76) ELT 497. In all these cases the Court was concerned with http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 28 the applicability of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise

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

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an “urban consumers’ co-operative society” means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. 18 (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under