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

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

housed, becomes an integral part of the mobile telephone system. It was also contended that since it is through these items including the Page 14 of 76 prefabricated building that the mobile telephone service is provided as an output to the subscribers, these articles, including the prefabricated shelters/buildings will be eligible for CENVAT input credit. 9.8 The Revenue rejected

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

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

2. Departmental instructions. – Instruction read as under: “Seizure of Jewellery and Ornaments in Course of Search Operations- Guidelines for.- Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in course of operations under section 132 have come to the notice to the Board. The 43 question of a common approach to situations where search parties come across items of jewellery

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

2 WLR 449 : (1981) 1 All ER 865 (HL)] enunciated the look at test. According to that test, the task of the Revenue is to ascertain the legal nature of the transaction and, while doing so, it has to look at the entire transaction holistically and not to adopt a dissecting approach. 97. One more aspect needs to be reiterated

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

250, also   support   our   view   in   the   present   case. In UCO Bank's case, the assessee Bank claimed a set off under section 24(2) of the Income­tax Act,   1922   (section   71(1)   of   the   present   Act) against its income from interest on securities under   section   8   of   the   1922   Act   (similar   to section   28   of   the   present

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

250 ITR 369 and the reasoning given by this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. R.C. Jain and others - 1981 (2) SCC 308. According to learned counsel, even after the amendment to Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act, by inserting the Explanation thereto, the AMC(s) continues to be covered by Item