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

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

158- BC.” As the said proviso was introduced with effect from 01.06.2002, i.e. with prospective effect and by reason thereof, tax chargeable under Section 135 of the Income Tax Act is to be increased by surcharge levied by a Central Act, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of law that the taxing statute should

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

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

M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid

158 relates to retention and not appropriation. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7 9. Stand of the respondents on the other hand was that reference to Section 153A in Section 132B shows that it relates to estimated liability. Though it is accepted that the provision relating to estimated liability in terms of Section

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

158 ITR 102 (SC) 10 Commissioner of Income-Tax15 and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd. and another16. Even if the fair market value of the shares allotted in the amalgamated company on the date of allotment exceeds the book value of the shares in the amalgamating company, such appreciation is purely notional. Real income would arise only

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(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

158 1992 SCALE (1)1000 ACT: Income Tax Act 1961 : Section 32. Income Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules 1983. Depreciation allowance-Nature and object of. Roads and drains-Land within factory premises-Necessary adjuncts to factory buildings-Treated as ‘building’ for purposes of depreciation. Statutory Interpretation : Taxing statutes-Provision for deduction, exemption or relief-to be construed reasonable and in favour

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