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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

167 33 49. It was lastly argued that the expression “trade” carries within it the idea of profitability: counsel cited State of Gujarat v. Mahesh Dhiarjlal Thakkar44, Sodan Singh & Ors. v New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors45 and T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors46. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in CIT, Madras v. M/s Madurai Mills

M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS(APPEALS)

In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the

167 "SECTION XVI MACHINERY AND MECHANICAL APPLIANCES; ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT; PARTS THEREOF NOTES 1. This Section does not cover; (a) .....................! | | | (o) 2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter 84 and Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machiners not being parts of the articles described in Heading No. 84.64 or parts

M/S. UDAYANI SHIP BREAKERS LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CUSTOMS &CENTRAL EXCISE,RAJKOT

167 per Long Ton. Importer got a letter of Credit bearing No.58 IDC 21.97 dated 12.8.1997 opened in favour of Ruby Enterprise Inc., 2018, Antwerp, Belgium, the foreign sellers for US$ 68,49,839.00 which amount was remitted by the Vysya Bank Ltd., Mumbai to the beneficiaries on 12.8.1997 itself. The importer had thereafter sought and been granted permission

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

68,310/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellants sent their replies, inter-alia, submitting that what was imported were not goods and there could be no excise duty on services since the remittances were in Form A-2 and tax at source under the Income-Tax Act was paid in respect of the said contracts

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

68 came into force on the 1st September 1968. 12 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done, taken, made, given, issued, granted, adjudged, imposed or ordered, as the case may be, under the corresponding provision of this Act as if this Act had commenced on the 29th day of June

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

167 39 Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Sree Durga Distributors Vs. State of Karnataka11; (ii) Mohd. Shabir Vs. State of Maharashtra12; 14.7. Applying the above principle to the issue in hand, it is submitted that the specific words ‘know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses and franchises’ constitute a distinct class or category

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stood dismissed. 3. On 31.12.92 assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1992-93 declaring "nil" income. Later on the assessee filed a revised return on 6.8.93 declaring a loss of Rs.1,11,68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD vs. M/S SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the aforesaid demand was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in original dated 13.02.2002, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal of the respondent. Next level appeal filed by the respondent before the CESTAT, Bangalore, however, yielded results favourable to the respondent, as this