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

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

1) The scheme of 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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

1) of the Finance Act, 1994? I. Whether the respondent rendered services falling within the category of ‘Real Estate Agent’, taxable under Section 65(105)(v) read with Section 65(88) of the Finance Act, 1994, during the period from 1st October, 2004 to 31st March, 2007? 31. For adjudicating the issue at hand, it is pertinent to examine

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

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

65 of 112 10.5 In Aswini Kumar Ghose vs. Arabinda Bose, (1952) 2 SCC 237 : AIR 1952 SC 369, this Court speaking through Patanjali Sastri, C.J. observed that only when there is any inconsistency between what is contained in a provision of an enactment and a non-obstante clause would make the latter in what is to yield to what

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

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

house and his chambers were disallowed because his object and purpose in travelling was mixed and not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the profession. Coming now to Indian cases; In Mask & Co. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Madras [(1943) 11 ITR 454] the assessee in breach of his contract sold crackers at a lower rate and a decree

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

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

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

1)(f) of the Constitution. No one denies that an evacuee from Pakistan has a residual right in the property that he left in Pakistan. But the real question is, can that right be considered as ownership within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. As mentioned earlier that section seeks to bring to tax income of the property

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

housing is an integral part of right to life, and contended that the predominant activity of the assessee involves the fulfilment of those objectives, especially for the weak and poorer sections of the society. He relied on this court’s decision in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P & Ors.59 which had stated that right to social justice includes right

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

house the contract is one of sale though work and labour are involved in the making and fixing, nor does it matter that ultimately the property was to pass to the War Office under the head contract. As between the plaintiff and the defendants the former passed the property in the goods to the defendants who passed

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. G. DAYARAM & CO

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

property; (e) to carry on the business of hotel-keepers, licensed victualler, refreshment purveyors; (f) to buy, maintain and sell horses and ponies for racing, breeding and training either directly or through riding clubs, studs or other agencies; ... (j) to establish institutions, schools, funds and other conveniences for training jockeys and riders, both professional and amateur; ....” Page 49 JUDGMENT

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

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

65,000/-. The claim of depreciation of the assessee was based on Section 32(1)(ii) which stood inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. However, the said Section deals with claim for depreciation of items acquired on or after 1.4.1998. The assessee claimed before the A.O. that the BSE membership card is a “licence” or “business

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

1. Leave granted. 2. This judgment shall dispose of a batch of civil appeals, as learned counsel appearing for both sides have submitted that common substantial questions of law are involved in all these appeals. 3. The present appeals arise from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court where a large number of appeals were disposed of under

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

65. In this judgment, Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, as originally enacted, came up for consideration before this Court. After setting out Section 254(1), this Court referred to Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3rd Edn., Arts. 5401 and 5402), and then held that the power which has 7 been conferred by the said Section on the Appellate Tribunal with

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