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

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

Section 73 of the Central Excise Act. According to the Revenue, the Assessee had claimed and used credit in respect of goods which do not qualify as “capital goods” within the meaning of CENVAT Rules. The plea of the Assessee was that these were capital goods within the meaning of Rule 2(a)(A)(i) and (ii) of the CENVAT

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

4 SCC 378 63 1964 (7) SCR 664 38 crore (from FY-2007-08 to 2020-21), which given its financial condition will jeopardise its existence and functioning. 59. Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel argued on behalf of Bhatinda Improvement Trust and adopted the submissions of Mr. Soparkar. She urged, in addition, that it is obligatory on part

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

4 For short “MOUs”. 5 Hereinafter, being referred to as “SICCL”. 6 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 for the acquisition, development and management of land parcels for its real estate project at Sahara City Homes, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan), Vadodara (Gujarat), and Kurukshetra (Haryana) respectively. 7. The salient features of the MOUs germane for the adjudication

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual 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

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 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

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

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

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

property or person, to prevent violation of privacy of a citizen……………. But the Court could examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and search warrant could not be issued merely with a view to making a roving or fishing enquiry. The expression ‘reason to believe’ has been

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

73 (P&H)). The distinction sought to be made between the society, and the educational institution run by it, does not, therefore, merit acceptance. 8. In order to be eligible for exemption, under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, it is necessary that there must exist an educational institution. Secondly, such institution must exist solely for educational purposes

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

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

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