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

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 31,71,692.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00 (100% of the tax). The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

192 ITR 187 (Delhi)] 6. The relevant provisions under Section 115JAA of the Act, introduced by Finance Act, 1997 w.e.f. 1.4.1997, i.e., applicable for assessment years 1997-98 and onwards, governing the carry forward and set off of credit available in respect of tax paid under Section 115JA, show that when tax is 10 paid by the assessee

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

68,546 1992-93 61,39,448 16,53,560 64,30,765 1993-94 7,21,192 NIL 7,21,192 1994-95 65,145 NIL 65,192 1995-96 3,99,023 1,32,333 3,99,023 Total 1,57,77,630 24,36,352 1,60,66,947” 5. Section

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

192 40 14.8. He further submits that the right acquired by the payer on payment of non-compete fee does not fall in this category. It is a negative covenant that imposes an obligation on the recipient of the fee to desist from doing something and as such, it cannot be ‘used’ by the payer for the purpose

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

192. A proviso has to be construed as a part of the clause to which it is appended. A proviso is added to a principal provision to which it is attached. It does not enlarge the enactment. In case the provision is repugnant to the enacting part, the proviso cannot prevail. Though in absolute terms of a later

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

192 (India Carbon vs. VBS Sugar). The last judgment we would advert to under the Income Tax Act was rendered by one among us (Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi) and the decision is P.G. & W. Sawoo (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. 2017(13) SCC 284. The facts of the said case in a nutshell was as follows: The assessee

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