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

239 ITR 775 42 14.12. In the context of the Act, more particularly Section 32 thereof, there is no similar provision which specifically lays down that a right which is not capable of being put to use like the right acquired on payment of non-compete fee is nonetheless eligible for depreciation. 14.13. Summing up his arguments, Mr. Dwarakanath

ITW SIGNODE INDIA LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part but

239 and Dipak Chandra Ruhidas Vs. Chandan Kumar Sarkar (2003) 7 SCC 66] Before us, the constitutionality of Section 11A as amended in the year 2000 has not been questioned. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22 Cotspun (supra) was decided when the matters relating to classification, approval thereof as also short-levy or upon detection

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

239], India United Mills 42 Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 810 : AIR 1955 SC 79 : (1955) 27 ITR 20] and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab [(1963) 3 SCR 893 : AIR 1963 SC 1062 : (1963) 48 ITR 1] ). But it must also be realised that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy

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

239]. GRI 1, which gives primacy to the headings and notes, is the non-negotiable starting point. GRI 2, which deals with incomplete, unassembled or composite goods or mixtures, often acts as an extension of GRI 1, by deeming the headings to include incomplete/unassembled goods or mixtures or combinations of a material or substance. GRI 3 is only invoked when

GVK INDS. LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act (1961) was unconstitutional on the ground that it constitutes a law with respect to objects or provocations outside the territory of India, thereby being ultra- vires the powers granted by Clause (1) of Article 245. Interpreting Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 245, Chief Justice Pathak (as he then