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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and “applets” incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content that

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

133, to buttress the point that market value of a thing has to be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. Though that was a case relating to land acquisition, he submits that the principle laid down therein for computation of market value would hold good

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

property right” in HEL? If not, the question of such a right getting “extinguished” will not arise. A legal right is an enforceable right. Enforceable by a legal process. The question is what is the nature of the “control” that a parent company has over its subsidiary. It is not suggested that a parent company never has control over

INCOME TAX OFFICER,MUMBAI vs. VENKATESH PREMISES COOP.STY.LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

6. The submission on behalf of the respondents shall be considered cumulatively for convenience except to the extent necessary. Relying on  Mittal Court Premises Co­operative Society Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer,  (2010) 320 ITR 414 (Bom), it was submitted that the notification dated 09.08.2001 was   restricted   in   its   application   to   housing   co­operative societies only and had no application

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

133-A of the Act was conducted to ascertain whether the cash of Rs. 8.6 lakhs was reflected in the accounts of the company. The action of respondent No. 4 in issuing the authorisation under Section 132(1) of the Act and seizure of Rs. 8.5 lakhs was challenged on the ground that there was no “information” on record

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

property or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge to the foreign countries so as to augment the foreign exchange earnings of our country and at the same time, earning a goodwill of the Indian technical know-how in the foreign countries, the provisions like Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted

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

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