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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

6 SCC 714 34 be regarded as trade or business. Reliance was placed upon State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturer’s Organisation52. 51. It was submitted that in the absence of profit motive, the activity is not trade, commerce or business - within the meaning of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961. Reliance was placed

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

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

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act. 158BA. Assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act where after the 30th day of June, 1995, a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents

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

6 “payment” is used in respect of payment of salary income to the assessee- employee and the expression “deduction” is used in respect of deduction of tax. According to the learned counsel, the very fact that Section 192(2) authorizes the assessee-employee to choose one of the several persons “making the payment” and not “making the deduction

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

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

properties and hence, “goods”. 11.9.10 What we have also noticed is that the Bombay High Court has held that since the towers and parts thereof are fastened and fixed to the earth and after their erection, they become immovable, and therefore, these cannot be classified as goods. While this conclusion is based on the classic definition of immovable property based

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

Appeal is allowed to the above extent

House of Lords in the matter of R.V. National Asylum Support Service [(2002) 1 W.L.R.2956] and its interpretation of the decision in Pepper v. Hart [(1993) A.C. 593]. on the question of ’executive estoppel’. In the former decision, Lord Steyn stated:- "If exceptionally there is found in the Explanatory Notes a clear assurance by the executive to Parliament about

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, ‘the CIT(A)’. 6

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

6 iii) Whether “possession” as envisaged by Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 was delivered, and if so, its nature and legal effect? iv) Whether there was any default on the part of the developers, and if so, its effect on the transactions and on exigibility to tax? v) Whether amount

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

house of Late Shri Chhaganlal   Godawat,   under   the   Rule   126­M   of   the   erstwhile Defence of India Rules, 1962.   The impugned gold along with the Iron Safe will, however, be released and handed over to the legal heirs of Late Shri Chhaganlal Godawat on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2.50 crores (Rupees Two crores fifty lacs only) in lieu

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

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

6 and 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 and in, our opinion, they lay down the correct law.” 39. To apply Section 69A of the Act, it is indispensable that the Officer must find that the other valuable article, inter alia, is owned by the assessee. A bailee, who is a common carrier, is not an owner of the goods

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

2(b) will not apply if the lease or letting out of a building is for a residential purpose; c. Renting of an immovable property is a supply of service; d. Construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex, building or civil structure intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

2)   of   Section   24,   in contradistinction   to   clause   (1)   thereof,   is concerned only with the business and not with its heads under Section 6 of the Act. Section 24,      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 26 of 45 therefore, is enacted to give further relief to an assessee carrying on a business and incurring loss   in   the   business

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8) ‘8. … The amending clause does not seek   to   explain   any   pre­existing legislation   which   was   ambiguous   or defective.   The   power   of   the   High Court   to   entertain   a   petition   for exercising   revisional   jurisdiction was   before   the   amendment   derived from   Section

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

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

6 (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such

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

CHELMSFORD CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

house property. Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is not, therefore, attracted. The levy in question squarely falls under entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The above case, in our opinion, squarely answers the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue. Therefore, the judgment of the Allahabad High