VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

22 that where the summary procedure under sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available for the Revenue, either suo motu or at the instance of the assessee to make a regular assessment under sub- section (2) of Section 143. The converse is not available; a regular assessment proceeding having been commenced under Section 143(2), there

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Housing Societies Ltd., [2003] 6 ALT 62 (AP)). 5 23. Imparting of education is regarded as an activity that is charitable in nature. Education has so far not been regarded as a trade or business where profit is the motive. (State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699; T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

property held under trust”, and held that: “23....Trusts and institutions are separately dealt with in the Act (Section 11 itself and sections 12, 12A and 13, for example). The expressions refer to entities differently constituted. It is thus clear that the newspaper business that is carried on by the Trust does not fall within sub-section (4A). The Trust

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

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

22. The Bench was of the view that the concepts of “previous years” as well as “total income” in Chapter XIV-B were retained. Therefore Section 158BB was to be read with Section 4 of the Act implying thereby that Section 4 remains the charging section. The procedure contained in Section 4 was not ruled out from block assessment procedure

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

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

house property, he should be the owner and as the custodian in Pakistan was the owner, the High Court was right in the view it took. 52. In Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad13; the matter arose under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Section 2(m) of the said Act defined net wealth

CHELMSFORD CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed and the judgment impugned herein is set aside

2(24), 14, 22 and 23 of the Act also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under Section 22 is the deemed income of an assessee from the property owned by him. At any rate, this question is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

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

22): goods includes—(a) vessels, aircrafts and vehicles; (b) stores; (c) baggage; (d) currency and negotiable instruments; and (e) any other kind of movable property. (v) Competition Act, 2002 Section 2(i): “goods” means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (8 of 1930) and includes— (A) products manufactured, processed or mined; (B) debentures, stocks and shares

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

Housing Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Another 1995 Supp (1) SCC 50 and Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited 1995 (76) ELT 497. In all these cases the Court was concerned with http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 28 the applicability of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise

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

22 have adopted the arguments mentioned hereinabove. III. Relevant Provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Section 2 - Definitions. “2.(37A) “Rate or rates in force” or “rates in force”, in relation to an assessment year or financial year, mean- (i) for the purposes of calculating income-tax under the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section

R & B FALCON (A) PTY LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed to the above extent

22. If the reasonings of the AAR are taken to its logical conclusion, the CBDT circular would not be attracted. An employer cannot afford to loose on both the fronts. Its right to claim exemptions either would be in respect of the employees who are based in India or who are not. If the said employees are required

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

Section 2(47) also would not apply for the reason stated by the High Court, which is that it was not attracted because there was no change in membership of the society. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is important to first set out the important clauses of the JDA dated

RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

house property was accepted and the addition made by AO in that regard was deleted but, on examination of the award dated 29.09.1970, the CIT(A) found that the assessee was paid Rs.62,550/- as compensation and Rs.9,532/- as solatium and yet, capital gains on this account were not taxed by the 9 For short

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

housing or parking of aircraft or for any other service or facility offered in connection with aircraft operations at any airport, heliport or airstrip Explanation. - In this sub-clause “aircraft” does not include an aircraft belonging to any armed force of the Union and “aircraft operations” does not include operations of any aircraft belonging to the said force

M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

22. Section 10(23C)(vi) read with the 3rd and 13th provisos thereto and Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act are as follows:- “Section 10- Incomes not included in total income.—In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS xxx xxx xxx Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly - You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law nothwithstanding this limitation.” “4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

22. There is a deliberate intention to permit ITC on plant or machinery under Section 17(5)(d) even if the plant or machinery is immovable, and Section 17(5)(d) cannot be detracted by Section 16(3). He submitted that Sections 16(3) and 17(5) must be read harmoniously. REPLY TO REJOINDER 23. We may note here that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

22 of 27 currency notes and to that it was found that confiscation of currency notes was a loss occasioned in pursuing his business i.e. a loss which sprung directly from carrying on of his business and was incidental to it. Due to this, the assessee in the said case held entitled to deduction under Section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

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

22 incorporated, by Parliament, in the said Ex- planation to Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act. This deliberate omission is important.” 30. In the above case, earlier judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs. R.C. Jain, (1981) 2 SCC 308 was considered where this Court had laid down and applied the functional test as to whether