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

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

House of Parliament. (1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2): Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

70 Summation of interpretation of Section 2(15) ............................................................................................... 85 C. Sections 10, 11, 12, 12A, 12AA and 13 of the IT Act ................................................................................ 86 Distinction between business held under Trust [Section 11(4)] and Trust carrying on business [Section 11(4A)] 87 D. What kinds of income or receipts may not be characterized as derived from trade, commerce, business

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

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

Section 406 makes it abundantly clear that any such act by a carrier attracts the offence under Section 406. The Court in other words would have to allow the commission of an offence by the appellant in the process of finding that 71 the appellant is the owner of the goods. In other words, proceeding on the basis that there

MOHAN WAHI vs. COMMNR. INCOME TAX, VARANASI

The appeal stands allowed in

house property and a sale certificate was also issued to respondent No.3. The order of the Tax Recovery Officer confirming the sale was put in issue before CIT, Varanasi by the firm UPCC and its partners P and S, by http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10 filing a petition under section 264 of the Act. Vide

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant part

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

Section. He contended that, in the case of the present appellant, the giving effect order made by the CIT (Appeals) had not been fully worked out by the Assessing Officer as income under the four heads i.e. a) disallowance of bad debts to the extent of Rs. 68,02,046.00; b) income from house property to the.extent

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

3) cannot be treated on the same footing.    54. All this just goes to show that the violations committed by PERSONS falling under different category cannot be treated alike. If the rule were to be applied to all these categories of PERSONS uniformly it would result in the violation of Article 14.  55. The   appellant’s   case   does

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and “applets” incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content that

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

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

3,000 was paid and the penalty plus the costs were claimed as deduction in arriving at the profits. The Special Commissioners had found that the penalty and costs were incurred by the assessee in the course of carrying on their trade and so incidental thereto and were admissible deductions. Rowlatt, J., on a reference held

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI vs. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD

House Property; (iii) Profits and Gains of Business or Profession; (iv) Capital Gains and (v) Income from Other Sources. Thereafter, manner of computation of the income under the aforesaid heads is stipulated in various sections falling under Chapter IV. As far as Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession is concerned, Sections 28 to 44DB

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

3 crores to Rs 250 crores per annum during the period 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. Even after 11-2-2007, taxes are being paid by VIH ranging from Rs 394 crores to Rs 962 crores per annum during the period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 (these figures are apart from indirect taxes which also run in crores). Moreover

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

3. 15 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 parties for such transactions would fall within its scope and ambit. 15. The Commissioner, after a perusal of the MOUs, held that the activities undertaken by the respondent were in the nature of those performed by a ‘Real Estate Agent/Real Estate Consultant’ and therefore, the respondent would squarely fall within

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

House, Kandla) Cross Examination of Shri Gobind Singh, Manager (Lab), IOCL, Central Laboratory, Mumbai in the matter of SCN F. No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-11(INT-2/2018 dated 24.04.2019 issued to M/s. Gastrade International & Others by Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate. Q: What is your name·? A: Dr. Gobind Singh. Q: Where have you been working and for how long? A: I have