THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

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

22 incorporated, by Parliament, in the said Ex- planation to Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act. This deliberate omission is important.” 30. In the above case, earlier judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs. R.C. Jain, (1981) 2 SCC 308 was considered where this Court had laid down and applied the functional test as to whether

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

22. Section 10(23C)(vi) read with the 3rd and 13th provisos thereto and Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act are as follows:- “Section 10- Incomes not included in total income.—In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included

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

CHELMSFORD CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

house property. Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is not, therefore, attracted. The levy in question squarely falls under entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The above case, in our opinion, squarely answers the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue. Therefore, the judgment of the Allahabad High

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 of 27 currency notes and to that it was found that confiscation of currency notes was a loss occasioned in pursuing his business i.e. a loss which sprung directly from carrying on of his business and was incidental to it. Due to this, the assessee in the said case held entitled to deduction under Section 10

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

housing or parking of aircraft or for any other service or facility offered in connection with aircraft operations at any airport, heliport or airstrip Explanation. - In this sub-clause “aircraft” does not include an aircraft belonging to any armed force of the Union and “aircraft operations” does not include operations of any aircraft belonging to the said force

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

Section 2(47) also would not apply for the reason stated by the High Court, which is that it was not attracted because there was no change in membership of the society. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is important to first set out the important clauses of the JDA dated

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

22. There is a deliberate intention to permit ITC on plant or machinery under Section 17(5)(d) even if the plant or machinery is immovable, and Section 17(5)(d) cannot be detracted by Section 16(3). He submitted that Sections 16(3) and 17(5) must be read harmoniously. REPLY TO REJOINDER 23. We may note here that

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

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

22. The Bench was of the view that the concepts of “previous years” as well as “total income” in Chapter XIV-B were retained. Therefore Section 158BB was to be read with Section 4 of the Act implying thereby that Section 4 remains the charging section. The procedure contained in Section 4 was not ruled out from block assessment procedure

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

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

10 and Section 8 of the Act respectively, that they were mutually   exclusive   and,   therefore,   the   losses under the head “business” could not be carried forward   from   the   preceding   year   to   the succeeding year and set off under Section 22(4) of  the  Act  against   the   income  from  securities held by the assessee. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee

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

10 restrained from dealing with the house in question by a judicial order and the said judicial order had been vacated only in the month of May, 2004 and therefore, the sale deed could not be executed before the said order was vacated though the agreement to sell had been executed on 27th September, 2002. 19. If one considers