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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

145 H. Application of interpretation................................................................................................................... 146 4 1. Leave granted in all matters where leave has not already been granted. C.A. No. 21762/2017 (Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Exemptions v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority) is taken as the lead matter. 2. Religious and charitable trusts have existed in one form or the other, tracing their origins to the instinct

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act [or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false]”. 21. Sections 158BC and 158BD of the Act are machinery provisions. Section 158BC of the Act provides the procedure for block assessment and Section 158BD

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

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

House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: “The amending clause does not seek to explain any pre-existing legislation which was 8 (1968) 3 SCR 623 Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 39 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 40 JUDGMENT ambiguous or defective

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

145 ITR 673 in the case of Searls (India) Ltd, the same High Court ruled that testing of samples in India and giving results and certificate to foreign company did represent technical services rendered outside India. In view of the forgoing discussion, I would hold that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80-O as the services made

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

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

house bearing No. 1-11-219, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The property is located in posh area near Airport in Begumpet. The area of the property is about 6000 sq. yds., and value will be around Rs. 2 crores. Thus, property as referred above belongs to HUF and the assessments under consideration were passed in the status of HUF. From the details

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

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

Appeal is allowed and the

145) ITR 387 and also of this court in Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Others (1981) 1 SCC 653 and held that the respondent assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B (1A) of the Act. 7. The Revenue challenged the judgment of the Tribunal before the High Court. The High Court upheld the judgment

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

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