M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

211 I.T.R. 652) wherein it was held that the business of hatchery cannot be termed as an industrial undertaking producing articles or things. That is how both sets of appeals are before us. Respondents in these civil appeals and the appellant in civil appeal No.2596/97 (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) have poultry farms and they run hatcheries where eggs

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

211 : (2000) 38 RLT 846 (LB). It noted that the Larger Bench was faced with the issue as to whether the law laid down by a two- member Bench in Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, (1993) 68 ELT 234 was correct or decisions of Coordinate Benches in Mitutronics vs. Collector of Customs, (1990) 46 ELT 500, Roto

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

section (1). 16. In the result the review petition is partly allowed and the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1969 modified to the extent that the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment imposed on Girdharilal is set aside. The sentence of fine of Rs 2000 shall, however, stand.” [Emphasis supplied] 64. In M/s Northern

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG vs. WOODCRAFT PRODUCTS LIMITED, CALCUTTA

The appeals of the revenue are allowed while the appeals and SLPs of the manufacturers arc

211 ment was made in Chapter Note 5 on account of the surviving controversy even after the amendment made w.e.f. 19.3.1990. These appeals and the connected matters relate to these three periods. 2.For the first period, the Tribunal held in the main judgment dated 18.10.1989 reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 668 that block board does not fall within Heading