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

House of Parliament. (1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2): Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after

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

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

D G M E N T A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The   conundrum   in   these   appeals   is:   when   the   Competent Authority claims that the subject property (to be forfeited) is that of the convict (V.P. Selvarajan) and ostensibly held by the relatives of the convict (respondents herein), whether it is mandatory to serve a primary   notice   under   Section   6(1

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D. Relevant changes brought about to the IT Act, 1961 (Finance Act, 1983 and 1991) 20. It is pertinent to note that the judgment in Surat Art Silk was delivered on 19.11.1979. The expression “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit” in Section 2(15) of the IT Act, was omitted by the Finance Act, 1983, w.e.f

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

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

D G M E N T R.F.Nariman, J. 1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. 2. The present appeals relate to a common judgment dated 24th September, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital in two income tax appeals, and a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 29th January, 2010 in Pine Grove International

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

d) From the above chart it is noticed that the company raised huge unsecured loans within two years of its incorporation from various individuals and companies. e) Whereas, in the pre search analysis, on going through the records available with the MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) and ITBA (Income Tax Business Application) it came to light that the company

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

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

D G M E N T M. M. Sundresh, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, drawing a distinction between a claim for deduction of a loss incurred in an illegal business, as against a claim of a loss qua a legitimate business

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

D G M E N T The following judgment of the Court was delivered: D.P. Wadhwa, J. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar and Union of India, Ministry of Finance have filed this appeal against the judgment dated October 24, 1994 of the Orissa High Court which the High Court dismissed their revision and affirmed the order of the subordinate court

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

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

d) an amount under sub-rule (2) of rule 16 of Central excise Rules, 2002; or (e) service tax on any output service: …………………………………………… ……………………………………………” Rule 4 “Condition for allowing CENVAT credit. 4. (1) The CENVAT credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer or in the premises

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

d) Copies of electricity bills received from the State Electricity Board for electricity supply to the industrial consumers. 11.6. Respondent has stated that since part of the electricity produced was captively consumed by the manufacturing units owned by it, the rate of transfer of power was recorded at the market rate i.e. the rate at which electricity was supplied

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

11 of 27 \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005" Clause 1 of Article 7 of the said agreement reads as under : "1. The profits of an enterprise of a Contacting State shall be taxable only in that Contracting State unless the enterprise carries

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

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