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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax.” 25. The scheme of the Income Tax Act, insofar as the question raised before us is concerned, is that for income to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, residence in India, as defined

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

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

APPROPRIATE ATY. & COMMR., INCOME TAX vs. VARSHABEN BHARATBHAI SHAH

The appeal is allowed

1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5426 of 1997 PETITIONER: APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY & COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. VARSHABEN BHARATBHAI SHAH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha,, N. Santosh Hegde & Y.K. Sabharwal JUDGMENT: BHARUCHA, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J The Revenue is in appeal by special leave against the judgment

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

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

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, it is evident that in an immovable property there is neither mobility nor marketability as understood in the excise law. Whether an article is permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth requires determination of both the intention as well

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

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

68,402/- proposed in SCN for period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2008 (Impugned Order at pg. 22 of Paperbook Vol I) OIO confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,56,05,193/- for the period April Category III Business Auxiliary Services: Section 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 – marketing and distributing (Impugned Order at pg. 20 of Paperbook