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

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

THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed directing

194(1), out of the sums paid on its behalf to the contractor as per clauses 12 & 13 of the contract, the Income Tax Officer, Jamshedpur, served on the principal officer of the appellant a notice dated 30th March, 1978 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the appellant under sections 276B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

194  of  2015,  C.A. No. 114  of  2015,  C.A. No. 120  of  2015,  C.A. No. 7395  of  2012, C.A. No. 7394  of  2012, C.A.   No.   121     of     2015,     C.A.   No.   122     of     2015,     C.A. Nos.1430­1432 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 8507­ 8509  of  2012,  C.A. No. 128  of  2015, C.A.No

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

194 ITR 32 (Del.) 14 (1995) 215 ITR 234 (P&H) 11 search and seizure. 13. In S. Narayanappa v. CIT,15 a case of re-assessment for the reason that income had escaped assessment, this Court held the Revenue must have reason to believe that the income, profits or gains chargeable to income tax had been underassessed. The Court

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

194/- 2. Tiger Global International III Holdings, Mauritius 1,422,897 USD 181,782,633.10 equivalent to INR Rs.1259,75,36,473.83 3. Tiger Global International IV Holdings, Mauritius 66,026 USD 8,435,171.44 equivalent to INR Rs.58,45,57,380.79 5.6. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Indian tax authorities by filing applications under Section 197 of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

194 ITR 294, referred to. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2916 (NT) of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1979 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.A. No. 43 to 1979 WITH C.A. Nos. 1194/77, 2978/89, 5535/90 & 1404 of 1991. S.C. Manchanda, S. Rajappa, Ms. A. Subhashini and K.P. Bhatnagar for the Appellant. Harish N. Salve