INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

16 subject properties and, therefore, no notice is required to be given to the convict. 19. The respondents have invited our attention to the definition of “persons” and Explanation 2 in Section 2 of the 1976 Act.  It is also urged   that   the   properties   referred   to   in   the   impugned   notices issued to the respondents were not made subject matter

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

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

property in his own right.” 55. In Mysore Minerals Ltd. M.G. Road, Bangalore v. Commissioners of Income Tax, Karnataka, Bangalore16 the assessee company though allotted houses by delivery of possession by the Housing Board, an actual deed of conveyance had not been executed in its favour. The houses so allotted were for the use of its staff. Assessee claimed depreciation

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

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

properties and hence, “goods”. 11.9.10 What we have also noticed is that the Bombay High Court has held that since the towers and parts thereof are fastened and fixed to the earth and after their erection, they become immovable, and therefore, these cannot be classified as goods. While this conclusion is based on the classic definition of immovable property based

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

16:42:14 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15623 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.499 OF 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15657 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3170 OF 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15650 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.1629 OF 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15633 OF 2017 (ARISING

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

16. From the above it is manifest that the answer to the question whether the plants in question are movable property, would depend upon whether the same are immovable property. That is because anything that is not immovable property is by this very definition extracted above “moveable” in nature. 17. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does

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

Section 54 of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated Page 16

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,RAJKOT vs. GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA

Bench: Us. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Will Refer To The Facts Emerging From The Records Of Civil Appeal No.8103 Of 2009.

house property which had been let out and some shares. The donees were to enjoy the income of these properties during their lifetime. Thereafter, the properties were to devolve on their children. In that case, it was pointed out that Income Tax return was filed in the status of association of persons prior to the assessment year

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

House of the Legislature of that State.” 20. It is also relevant to notice certain provisions of Act, 1976, before we proceed further to examine the issue. The authority has been constituted by notification dated 17.04.1976 exercising power under Section 3 of Act, 1976. Section 3 provides for Constitution of the Authority which is to the following effect

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

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

Housing Boards etc. to become taxable”. The deletion of authorities, which were enumerated in Section 10(20A) was a clear indicator that such authorities, which were enjoying exemption under Section 10(20A) shall no longer be entitled to enjoy the exemption henceforth. The deletion of Section 10(20A) thus has to be given a purpose and meaning. 34. This Court

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

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 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

M/S SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

16 Section 73 deals with losses from speculation business. Under sub- 8 Section (1) of Section 73, a loss computed in relation to speculation business carried on by an assessee can only be set off against the profits and gains of another speculation business. The Explanation to Section 73 contains a deeming fiction where certain businesses shall, for the purposes

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

16 Section 6(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or 17 Raja Saliqram Vs. Secretary of State of India in Council, 1874 12 Bengal LR 167, at page 182 18 Rule 126P. Penalties—(1) Whoever,—(i) fails or omits to make any return including a further return

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed accordingly

property as on the date of the transfer exceeded the consideration of Rs.16,500 by not less than 15%. The I.T.O. proposed, accordingly, to fix the fair market value of the house at Rs.65,000 and assess the difference of Rs.48,500 as capital gains in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed a writ petition. It was allowed

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

16 of 28 items greatly enhance the value of the papers and ink in the aforesaid examples. This means that the charge of a duty is on the final product whether it be the encyclopaedia or the engineering or architectural drawings or any manual. Similar would be the position in the case of a programme of any kind loaded

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

16 payment. It was further submitted that the respondent is a foreign company having its HO in Tokyo. It had, in the relevant financial years in India, a Project Office and a Liaison Office. The Japanese expatriates were deputed to the said Establishments as employees. As per the terms of deputation, the said expatriates were to be paid “salaries