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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

54 III. Analysis and reasoning ............................................................................................................................... 55 A. Aids to interpretation ................................................................................................................................ 62 (i) History of the legislation .................................................................................................................. 62 (ii) Other extrinsic aids to construction of the statute ............................................................................ 63 B. Interpretation of Section 2(15), the definition clause ............................................................................... 70 Summation of interpretation of Section 2(15) ............................................................................................... 85 C. Sections 10, 11, 12, 12A, 12AA and 13 of the IT Act ................................................................................ 86 Distinction

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

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

House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: “The amending clause does not seek to explain any pre-existing legislation which was 8 (1968) 3 SCR 623 Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 39 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 40 JUDGMENT ambiguous or defective

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

property to the proposed vendee but that is not the case at hand. 22. In addition to the fact that the term “transfer” has been defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, even if looked at the provisions of Section 54 of the Act which gives relief to a person who has transferred his one residential house

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

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

housing the equipment. Apart from it, the CESTAT was of the opinion that the goods cannot be re- erected as in the previous place as requirement of each place is different. The structures cannot be shifted without damage. Apart from that various items and components are embedded in the earth. Therefore, the structure would not be considered as movable. Page

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

54,68,276/-. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT. 9. In the impugned judgment by the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the High Court

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

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

54 of the Transfer of Property Act would, therefore, exclude the conferment of absolute title by transfer to the assessee. That, however, would not take away the right of the assessee to remain in possession of the property, to realise and receive the rents and profits therefrom and to appropriate the entire income for its own use. The so-called

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

54 and 54B be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Capital gains”, and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” “Section 2(47) “transfer”, in relation to a capital asset, includes the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory

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

54 of 91 a supply has to be considered in light of Schedule II. Schedule II has a title: “Activities or transactions to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services”. The activities/transactions incorporated in Schedule II are treated as a supply of service. As far as lands and buildings are concerned, clauses (2) and (5) of Schedule

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, (b) … (c) … but does not include— (i) any stock-in-trade [other than the securities referred to in sub-clause (b)], consumable stores or raw materials held for the purposes of his business or profession. (j) …” 25 Section 2(47) – Transfer “transfer

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

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

2)(b) in the case belonging to an idol or a deity, by the manager of such idol or deity, whether known as shebait or manager or by any other name (c) in the case of gold belonging to a person whose properties under the management of a Court of wards, by the manager of such Court

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

54 together with the whole enterprise) or of such a fixed base, may be taxed in that other State. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of this article, gains from the alienation of ships and aircraft operated in international traffic and movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships and aircraft, shall be taxable only in the Contracting

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

House Certificate issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India; (c) \023provision of technical know-how\024 has the meaning assigned to it in sub- section (2) of Section 80MM; (d) \023small-scale industrial undertaking\024 has the meaning assigned to it in clause (2) of the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 32A. (2

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

54,28,077.00 and adds thereto to the following items:" 1. Receipts of compensation treated as bad Rs. 5428,077.00 debts as against income from other sources in the original order (p.5) 2. Rent & Licence fees treated as business Rs. 27,93,977.00 income as against income from house property in the original order (p. 7) 3. Interest income treated

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

property by other persons; 45-IA. Requirement of registration and net owned fund *** *** *** Explanations.-For the purposes of this section,- (I) "net owned fund" means- (a) the aggregate of the paid-up equity capital and free reserves as disclosed in the latest balance-sheet of the company after deducting there from- (i) accumulated balance of loss; (ii) deferred revenue expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

54,89,822. A final assessment order was passed on 19.10.2012 4 which was adverse to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) on 29.04.2013. On 31.05.2013, a stay of the operation of the order of the assessing officer was granted by the Tribunal