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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264, the amount of tax payable under this Act is reduced or increased, as the case may be, the amount of tax credit allowed under this section shall also be increased or reduced accordingly.” 9 5. As per provisions of Section 115JA

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

250 gms. Per unmarried lady and 100 gms. Per male member of the family, need not be seized. (iii) The authorised officer may, having regard to the status of the family and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

250 ITR 327, has taken a somewhat similar view and has held "that presumption arising under Section 132 (4A) must be held to be applicable only in relation to the provisional adjudication as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and the presumption cannot be said to have the effect of excluding the application of Section

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

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

250 million, such authority was conferred by a collective decision of the Board and required countersignature by Group C Mauritian-based Directors. The key Directors, such as Mr. Moussa Taujoo, Mr. Mohammad Akshar 23 Maherally, and Mr. Steven Boyd, were also signatories to the constitutional documents, akin to memoranda of association. The High Court further found that the minutes

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

250/-. … … … 21. Counsel for the Revenue contended that for the relevant period under consideration, the Assessing Officer has already issued notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 within time. As per the then prevailing provision, it was thereafter not necessary CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN

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

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

250 ELT 326 (Kant). (v) CCE v Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries, (2002) 7 SCC 515. (vi) CCE v. N.R.C. Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1894. (vii) Commr. of Customs v. Rupa and Co. Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 408. (viii) Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belapur, 2012 SCC OnLine CESTAT 3055. (ix) Commr. of C.Ex., Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

250 (-) 3,00,00 0 16,67,2 00 6,51,00 0 15000 1381920 23,18,2 00 NIL 13,96,9 20 (-) 2,43,75 0 NIL 9,21,28 0 6,77,53 0 ======= == NIL 16,80,2 00 6,51,00 0 15,000 12,43,4 70 23,31,2 00 2,43,68

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

SANDVIK ASIA LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX-I, PUNE

In the result, the appeals stand allowed

250/-. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,86,04,450/-. Assessment order was passed by respondent No.2 determining income of Rs.3,88,37,630/-. Respondent No.2, after rectifying his assessment order, determined the income of Rs.3,45,91,830/- and tax thereon at Rs.1,99,76,781/- and raised a demand for further tax payable of Rs.13