INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

houses) of such person; (ii) any  individual who had been or  is managing the affairs or keeping the accounts of such person; (iii)   any   association   of   persons,   body   of   individuals, partnership firms, or private company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, of which such person had been or is a member, partner or director; 33 1974.   The expression

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

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

property may revert back to the Board. That is a matter only 65 between the Housing Board and the allottee. No third person intervenes. The part-payments made by the allottee are with the intention of acquiring title. The delivery of possession by the Housing Board to the allottee is also a step towards conferring ownership. Documentation is delayed only

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

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 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 yet to be received can be taxed on a hypothetical assumption arising

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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

65(105)(zzzzj) of the Act 1994 to mean as:­ “Any services provided or to be provided, to any person, by any other person in relation to supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment and appliances for   use,   without   transferring   right   of   possession   and effective   control   of   such   machinery,   equipment   and appliances.” POSITION OF LAW  42. TATA Consultancy Services (supra

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

65 Section 3 (2):- “ The board shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract, and may by the said name sue and be sued.” 66 Section

MOHAN WAHI vs. COMMNR. INCOME TAX, VARANASI

The appeal stands allowed in

65. Under Section 224, an assessee cannot dispute the correctness of any certificate drawn up by the Tax Recovery Officer but it is lawful for the Tax Recovery Officer to cancel the certificate for any reason if he thinks it necessary to do so or to correct any clerical or any arithmetical error therein. Sub-section(3) of Section

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

65,298.00 and determined the tax payable by the appellant at Rs. 9,35,888.00. This amount of Rs. 9,35,888.00 was paid by the appellant on 12.02.1999 upon which a final certificate under Section 92 read with Section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and the KVSS, 1998 was issued certifying that the appellant had paid

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

Section 32, as discussed above, clearly envisages separate depreciation for a building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. The word “plant” is given inclusive meaning under Section 43(3) which nowhere includes buildings. The Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 68 of 91 Rules prescribing the rates of depreciation specifically provide grant of depreciation on buildings, furniture

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

property. Sub rule should be created and approval of Registrar is mandatory for these purposes. 31 29. To open branches within area of operation of bank with prior approval of Registrar for growth and expansion. 30. To provide safe deposit locker for customers. 31. To implement new facilities for the convenience of staff, customers and members. 32. To render agency

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

T.T.G.INDUSTRIES, MADRAS vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the

65) ELT 121; which held that the issue of immovable property was never raised before the Supreme Court in Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. She found support for her conclusion in the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. Vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 18; and held that the twin tests

COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHAVNAGAR vs. M/S GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD,JAFRABAD

65(105) (zn) which reads as follows:- “Taxable service” means any service provided or to be provided- “(zn) to any person, by a port or any person authorized by the port, in relation to port services, in any manner;” Further, under Section 67 of the said Act, the value of any taxable service shall be the gross amount charged

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it 4 which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area.” 11. Through

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

65 for the financial year immediately preceding, exceeds rupees one lakh, shall be subject to concurrent audit by an agency specified by the Government, and the audit shall take place as and when expenditure is incurred. The mere fact that the authorities failed to act in the matter to get the institution registered under the provisions

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 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