ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS xxx xxx xxx Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly - You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law nothwithstanding this limitation.” “4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

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

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

124 ITR 41. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal. 3. Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3.1 Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

124 of 2015,  C.A. No. 1101 of 2013, C.A. No. 129 of 2015,  C.A. No. 125 of 2015,    C.A. No. 127 of 2015, C.A.No

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

2 WLR 449 : (1981) 1 All ER 865 (HL)] enunciated the look at test. According to that test, the task of the Revenue is to ascertain the legal nature of the transaction and, while doing so, it has to look at the entire transaction holistically and not to adopt a dissecting approach. 97. One more aspect needs to be reiterated

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SRIEHMAL NAWALAKHA

Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High

houses of the building named as "Deep Shikha" was made by the assessee to his wife in terms of the Gift-tax Act, 1958?" By the impugned judgment the High Court answered the question of law in favour of the respondent. It came to the conclusion that the definition of the word ’gift’ under the Gift Tax Act was wider

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2) of section 253: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after considering the merits of the application made by the assessee, pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of section 253, for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant part

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

section notes. It is only when (i) no clear pathway exists to determine classification under a chapter heading, i.e., absence of a definition or criterion, and (ii) there is ambiguity regarding the meaning and scope of a tariff item, that the possibility of invoking the common parlance test arises. 57. In Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd & Ors. v. Union

M/S. BANGALORE CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

124 OF 2007 M/S. BANGALORE CLUB — APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. — RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16863 of 2010), CIVIL APPEAL NO.273 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16880 of 2010), CIVIL APPEAL NO.274 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil

ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 90 thereof, does not speak of the concept of a PE. This is a creation only of the DTAA. By virtue of Article 7(1) of the DTAA, the business income of companies which are incorporated in the US will be taxable only in the US, unless it is found that they were PEs in India, in which event

KOTHARI FILAMENTS vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs

124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on appellants on 8.3.2000 asking them to show cause as to why the consignment said to be valued at Rs.63,32,018.60 CIF should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act, 1962 and as to why the importers and their agents should