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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given

M/S.GRASIM INDS.LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,BOMBAY

68’ instead of the present expression used. Merely because the provision could have been differently worded, does not in any way affect the meaning of the expression used as it is clear and unambiguous. In Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors. ( JT 2002 (3) SC 131), following observations in Navin Chandra Mafatlal

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR vs. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES

Section 2(f), Item No. 68 of First Schedule--Notification No. 179/77, CE dated 18.6.1977--Exemption in relation to manufacture of which no process is carried on with the aid of power--Assessees using power to lift raw materials--Whether fails within ’process of manufacture’-- Exemption--Whether available. Words & Phrases: "Manufacturing Process"- Meaning of. HEADNOTE: By way of notification

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

131 of 2002 and, in any case, it being a matter of interpretation of statutory language of Section 80-O and its Explanation (iii), 41 the contention on behalf of the appellant about want of challenge to the findings is without substance. Rejoinder submissions on behalf of the appellant 11. The submissions made on behalf of the respondent have

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68,700 shares held by its sole shareholder and holding company Genpact India Investment, Mauritius, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.11.22 15:06:13 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2 the appellant bought back

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

68 of 161 he was a Customs officer under the Customs Act. In addition, that he was entrusted with the functions of the proper officer under Section 6 of the Customs Act. The Additional Director General of the DRI can be considered to be a Customs officer only if he is shown to have been appointed as Customs officer

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

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

section and chapter notes in the First Schedule of the Act, 1975, it is found that they are identical to their counterparts in the HSN. As no explicit statutory deviation has been shown to exist, there can be no doubt that the Explanatory Notes can be considered as binding guidance to resolve the classification dispute before us. ii. Applicability

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

The appeals are allowed

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

131 Comp Cas 451, that even if a non-obstante clause has wide amplitude, the extent of its impact has to be measured in view of the legislative intention and legislative policy. Further, the utility of non-obstante clause is where there is a conflict between what is stated in a provision and any other law for the time being

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

131. CGP was incorporated in 1998 in the Cayman Islands. It was in the Hutchison structure from 1998. The transaction in the present case was of divestment and, therefore, the transaction of sale was structured at an appropriate tier, so that the buyer really acquired the same degree of control as was hitherto exercised by HTIL. VIH agreed to acquire