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

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

8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 and in, our opinion, they lay down the correct law.” 39. To apply Section 69A of the Act, it is indispensable that the Officer must find that the other valuable article, inter alia, is owned by the assessee. A bailee, who is a common carrier, is not an owner of the goods. A bailee

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

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

8 of 1930) and includes— (A) products manufactured, processed or mined; (B) debentures, stocks and shares after allotment; (C) in relation to goods supplied, distributed or controlled in India, goods imported into India. (vi) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 2(13): “goods” includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

properties developed by AUDA were to be allotted for housing and residence, and earmarked specifically for public amenities, roads etc., a small percentage (15%) could be sold by public auction. It was submitted that the statutory model adopted by AUDA was to enable it to function as a self-sustaining unit. The disposal of plots through allotment and especially

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

13. The JDA, as has been stated above, was between the housing society, who was referred to as the owner, and two developers, namely Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. Strewn throughout the agreement is the fact that the owner, being absolutely seized and possessed of the property, was desirous of assigning its development rights

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

13…..It is clear from Section 45(1) of the Income Tax Act that the capital gains are chargeable to income-tax arising from the transfer of capital assets effected in the previous year in which the transfer took place. On a conjoint reading of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section

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

8. Relevant portion of Section 54 of the Act reads as under: “54. PROFIT ON SALE OF PROPERTY USED FOR RESIDENCE. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings

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 INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

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

8 read with Section 9 and 13 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, I959 (Act No. 35 of 1959) of 19 the State Government here by orders : (1) that for the purpose of carrying out improvement of the Urban Area included in the Municipal limits of Kota Town, a board of trustee called the improvement Trust, Kota shall be established

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

house property.  D.—Profits   and   gains   of   business   or profession.  E.—Capital gains.  F.—Income from other sources.”       Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 13 of 45 Clause B was of “interest on securities”.  It was deleted with effect from 1st April 1989 along with Sections 18 to 21, which dealt with interest on securities.  Head

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

13. Mr. Bagaria strenuously argued that even when the setting up of the plant has been held to be tantamount to manufacture of a plant and even when the plant may be machinery covered by Entry 8474 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, the same would not necessarily amount to manufacture of ‘exigible goods’ keeping in view

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

13 (i) persons having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration; (ii) the members of the House of the People and the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly the Municipal area; (iii) the members of the Council of States and the members of the Legislative Council of the State registered electors

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

House Certificate issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India; (c) \023provision of technical know-how\024 has the meaning assigned to it in sub- section (2) of Section 80MM; (d) \023small-scale industrial undertaking\024 has the meaning assigned to it in clause (2) of the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section

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

13 SCC 225 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 24 of 91 c. In response to the principles for examining the constitutional validity of taxation statutes, he submitted that the test of vice of discrimination in a taxing statute is less rigorous. He submitted that the Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate classifications given

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

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

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

Section 143(3) of the Act disallowing certain claims and rejecting the contentions of the assessee. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.09.1998 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the following items: (a) Premium amount of Rs. 3,57,153.00 (b) Depreciation

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

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

8 Section 115BBE being a subsequent legislation, the true meaning of Section 37(1) can be understood on that basis. 18. Having understood the provisions, I shall now consider the decisions relied upon at the Bar as they deal with the interpretation of the provisions governing. 19.Badridas Daga v. CIT , (1959) SCR 690 19.1 This Court was dealing with

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Housing Societies Ltd., [2003] 6 ALT 62 (AP)). 5 23. Imparting of education is regarded as an activity that is charitable in nature. Education has so far not been regarded as a trade or business where profit is the motive. (State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699; T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8