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

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

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, a company

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

254. 24 Thus, education i.e., imparting formal scholastic learning, is what the IT Act provides for under the head of “charitable” purposes, under Section 2 (15). 34. The issues which require resolution in these cases are firstly, the correct meaning of the term ‘solely’ in Section 10 (23C) (vi) which exempts income of “university or other educational institution

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee ; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year ; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found

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

2 and Loans and Advances of Rs. 31,84,701/-, in all, totalling Rs. 1,02,03,121/- from which AO allowed deduction of Rs. 20,34,605/- on account of Hire Purchase Finance Charges leaving a balance provision for NPA of Rs. 81,68,516/-. Before the AO, Assessee claimed deduction in respect of Rs. 81,68,516/- under

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 9(1)(i), the capital asset must be situated in India. It also distinguished legitimate tax planning from tax evasion, aligned with Azadi Bachao Andolan, and upheld Vodafone’s transaction. This Court reiterated that TRCs cannot be pierced except in cases involving fraud, sham transactions, etc., and reaffirmed the validity of the Mauritius Route and its inextricable link

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

Appeals are allowed

68." The Karnataka High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the following view : \005\005The Tribunal holds that looking to the scheme it appears that the presumption of Sub-section (4A) is only for the limited purpose of passing an order under Sub- section (5). According to the Tribunal the assessing authority was wrong in drawing

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

2,587.10 lakhs in the shares of the subsidiary company M/S Ceylon Glass Company Ltd., Sri Lanka. At the same time, he found that there were interest bearing borrowings of Rs. 3267.41 crores and interest of 38.22 crores was debited to the profit and loss account. This claim of deduction of the assessee under Section

VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

254(2) of the Act. 12. The assessee preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act. As already stated, the High Court, vide judgment dated 21st December 2001, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that: “To us it appears that the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax as also

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

In the result, the appeals stand allowed

68,88,220/- and tax thereon at Rs.1,47,88,521. The appellant on 30.04.1986 received a refund of Rs.42,38,260/- and became entitled to receive interest on the refund and requested respondent No.2 to grant interest on refund under Sections 214 and 244 of the Act for the period from 01.4.1977 to 31.03.1986. Assessment Year

M/S. H.P.L. CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

section or Chapter notes. Tribunal has totally failed to consider the said interpretation of Rule 1. The Tribunal has further held that since the starting raw materials were not classifiable under Chapter 25, the residue in question cannot be a product covered by Chapter 25. This finding is based on wrong assumptions and reasoning. There is no such requirement

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