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

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

M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

houses in India for residential purposes and[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36]; [(ix-a) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India

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

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

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

10 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and Sections 22 to 24 of the Indian income Tax Act, 1961, where ‘owner’ is spoken in respect of the house properties, the legal owner is meant and not the equitable or beneficial owner. Salmond On Jurisprudence, 12th edn., discusses the different ingredients of ‘ownership’ from pages 246 to 264. ‘Ownership

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

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

10. Being aggrieved, the respondents took the matter in appeal bearing   Nos.   F.P.A.No.31/MDS/98   (of   respondent   No.2)   and F.P.A.No.32/MDS/98   (of   respondent   No.1)   before   the   Appellate Tribunal  for   Forfeited   Property,   New  Delhi­II,   Camp:   Bangalore. These appeals came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide common   order   dated   15.11.2000.     Resultantly,   the   order   of forfeiture of subject properties passed

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

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

10. The proceedings before the Delhi High Court arose out of the decision rendered by the CESTAT, New Delhi against an Appeal preferred under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944. 10.1. The Assessee, Vodafone, provided cellular telecommunication services and paid service tax as applicable. It availed CENVAT credit on excise

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

Section   10(20A)   and   local   authorities   whose 15 income under the head “Income from house property” or “Income from other

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

CHELMSFORD CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed and the judgment impugned herein is set aside

15) as the total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Though the above judgment was also delivered considering the provisions of the 1922 Act, in our opinion, the legal position remains to be the same under the 1961 Act also. Even if we examine this position independent of the High Courts

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

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 on buildings, furniture

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA vs. M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

House, Kandla (in short ’Commissioner’) confirmed the demand of duty and also directed confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. It is to be noted that respondent no.1, inter alia, contended that there was no certainty that the rate of duty will be enhanced and that they acted under a bona fide belief that the funds would be available

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

10. Learned counsel for the revenue has argued that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals), as well as the ITAT, were all correct in bringing capital receipts under the JDA to tax as ‘capital gains’. According to the learned counsel, the present case is squarely covered by Section 2(47)(v) as Section 53A of the Transfer of Property

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act. 158BA. Assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act where after the 30th day of June, 1995, a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents

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

10. Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inter alia, sanctions what was during the relevant period called ‘central excise duty’ on all “excisable goods” produced or manufactured in India at the rates set forth in First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The term “excisable goods” appearing in Section 3 has been defined under 1 Section

SH. SANJEEV LAL ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH&AN

10. For the aforestated reasons, the Assessing Officer did not grant benefit under Section 54 of the Act and therefore, the assessment order had been challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal, so far as it pertained to the benefit under Section 54 of the Act was concerned, had been dismissed and therefore

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 property was accepted and the addition made by AO in that regard was deleted but, on examination of the award dated 29.09.1970, the CIT(A) found that the assessee was paid Rs.62,550/- as compensation and Rs.9,532/- as solatium and yet, capital gains on this account were not taxed by the 9 For short

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed accordingly

property as on the date of the transfer exceeded the consideration of Rs.16,500 by not less than 15%. The I.T.O. proposed, accordingly, to fix the fair market value of the house at Rs.65,000 and assess the difference of Rs.48,500 as capital gains in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed a writ petition. It was allowed