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

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

24 of 76 CENVAT Rules, and was liable for penalty recoverable from it under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Rules read with Section 73 of the Central Excise Act. According to the Revenue, the Assessee had claimed and used credit in respect of goods which do not qualify as “capital goods” within the meaning of CENVAT Rules

CHELMSFORD CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

house, shows that the principle of mutuality does not apply in a case governed by section 9. Naturally, when the basis for assessing tax on income from property is the mere ownership of the property and not the actual realisation of income, the question whether the payer and the recipient are one and the same person cannot arise

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

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

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 (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so.” “5A. Hearing of Objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose

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

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. For instance a hut is an immovable property, even if it is sold with the option to pull it down. A mortgage of the super structure of a house though expressed to be exclusive of the land beneath, creates an interest in immovable property, for it is permanently attached to the ground

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

Section 54 of the Act. 23. Consequences of execution of the agreement to sell are also very clear and they are to the effect that the appellants could not have sold the property to someone else. In practical life, there are events when a person, even after executing an agreement to sell an Page 15 JUDGMENT 15 immoveable property

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

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

24. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the following main questions arise for consideration: (i) Whether the definition of “plant and machinery” in the explanation appended to Section 17 of the CGST Act applies to the expression “plant or machinery” used in clause (d) of sub-section (5) of Section 17? Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page

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

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

Section 142 (1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer called upon the appellant to furnish details in respect of Assessment Year 1992-93 in connection with taxing of the licence fee of Rs. 24,12,114.00 received from the State Bank of India for let out portion of its property under the head "Income from House

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

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

property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or busi- ness carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own ju- risdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own ju- risdictional area. Explanation

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

24 of the Customs Act, 1962 were issued asking the appellants as to why (a) the sum remitted or declared during http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 28 investigation as consideration for drawings, designs and plans supplied by their collaborators should not be taken as transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with

INCOME TAX OFFICER,MUMBAI vs. VENKATESH PREMISES COOP.STY.LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

properties and   then   inducting   such   purchasers   as   members.       The validity   of   the   notification   dated   09.08.2001   having   been upheld by the Bombay High Court in  The New India Co­ operative Housing Society vs. The State of Maharashtra, 6 2013 (2) MHLJ 666, any receipt by the society beyond that permissible in the law under the notification, was not only illegal

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

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

24, 2023 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR …APPELLANT VERSUS PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS & ANR. …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T M. M. Sundresh, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the decision

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

24)(vi) defines ’income’ as including "any capital gains chargeable under Section 45". Section 45 http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4 provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year is chargeable to income tax under the head ’capital gains’ and is deemed

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

24 “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", - (a) In the case of any assessee – (i) any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April