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 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

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

71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade). It was registered under Section 12AA

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

71(1)   of   the   present   Act) against its income from interest on securities under   section   8   of   the   1922   Act   (similar   to section   28   of   the   present   Act).   It   was   held that UCO Bank was not entitled to such a set off as the income from interest on securities came   under   section   8   of   the   1922   Act. Therefore,   even

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

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

properties are under the management of any administrator or receiver , by such administrator or receiver. 25 Rule 126– I(3) No person who is either a required to make a declaration or a further declaration under this rule or exempted from making such declaration or further declaration under sub-rule (7) thereof, shall, after the commencement of this Part, acquire

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

property right” in HEL? If not, the question of such a right getting “extinguished” will not arise. A legal right is an enforceable right. Enforceable by a legal process. The question is what is the nature of the “control” that a parent company has over its subsidiary. It is not suggested that a parent company never has control over

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

property or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge to the foreign countries so as to augment the foreign exchange earnings of our country and at the same time, earning a goodwill of the Indian technical know-how in the foreign countries, the provisions like Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UDAIPUR vs. M/S CHETAK ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD

The appeal stands dismissed with no order

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

71 of 2008. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 2002­2003, the relevant Previous/Financial   year   for   which   is   2001­2002   i.e.   1.4.2001   to 31.3.2002. 3. Briefly   stated,   the   erstwhile   partnership   firm   ­   M/s.   Chetak Enterprises   entered   into   an   agreement   with   the   Government   of Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.03.05 16:56:51 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 Rajasthan for construction

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

property, including any error corrections, enhancements, updates, or modifications to the software, 53 whether made by the developer or third party. 54.  In Delta   International   Ltd. v. Shyam   Sundar Ganeriwalla, (1999)   4   SCC   545 : AIR   1999   SC 2607 and Ramdev   Food   Products   (P)   Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai   Patel, (2006)   8   SCC   726,   this   Court   quoted   with approval the following principles

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act [or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false]”. 21. Sections 158BC and 158BD of the Act are machinery provisions. Section 158BC of the Act provides the procedure for block assessment and Section 158BD

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

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

section notes. It is only when (i) no clear pathway exists to determine classification under a chapter heading, i.e., absence of a definition or criterion, and (ii) there is ambiguity regarding the meaning and scope of a tariff item, that the possibility of invoking the common parlance test arises. 57. In Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd & Ors. v. Union