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

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

195, the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf in the Finance Act of the relevant year or the rate or rates of income- 23 tax specified in an agreement entered into by the Central Government under section 90, or an agreement notified by the Central Government under section 90A, whichever is applicable by virtue

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

195 ITR 81 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mittal Corporation: (2005) 272 ITR 87 (Delhi); Li & Fung 19 India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2008) 305 ITR 105 (Delhi); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd.: (2009) 314 ITR 200 (Mad); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inchcape India (P) Ltd: (2005) 273 ITR 92 (Delhi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

195 of the Act and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Therefore, a scheme governing the procedures to be followed by such a body needs to be formulated after due consultations with Ministry of Law & Justice. Similarly, the scheme under section 253 have to follow the scheme under section 255. 5. In light of the above limitations

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