M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

68. Neither section 6 of the CGST Act nor the SGST Act nor the Circular dated October 5, 2018, therefore, apply to the fact-situation presented by the two petitions before us as they do not operate and are not intended to operate in a situation where the "intelligence based enforcement action" has repercussion or involvement of taxpayers beyond

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

36 1996. All the trade bodies60 as well Bureau of Indian Standards are members of its governing council. 54. It was submitted that the revenue had granted exemptions to the assessee society under Section 12A and Section 10(23C)(iv) while issuing various certificates from time to time (from AY 1996-1997 to 2007-2008); therefore

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

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

36) of the General Clause Act. If we consider the nature of annexation of the tower to the earth, it is seen that the annexation is not for permanent annexation to the land or the building as the tower can be removed or relocated without causing damage to it. It is also to be noted that the attachment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

via) (viaa) (viab); 47 (vii); 72A; 72AB, etc. 20 the transferee was in existence, vis-à-vis the transfer to the transferee company); carry forward of loss, depreciation, all bear out that under the Act, (a) the business-including the rights, assets and liabilities of the transferor company do not cease, but continue as that of the transferor company

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

via the Finance Bill, 2013, by proposing that a TRC would not be sufficient to claim treaty benefits, was abandoned, and that a press release dated 01.03.2013 reaffirmed that tax authorities were not to go behind 25 the TRC, the High Court held that this reiterated the legal sufficiency of the TRC. 6.17. As far as the Limitation of Benefits15

M.J.EXPORTS LTD. vs. CUSTOMS,EX.&GOLD(CONTROL)APP.TRI

68 commodities, mainly consumer items, were brought under control. Subsequently, as foreign exchange resources came under pressure, import control was extended to cover other commodities as well. Soon after the second world war came to an and, the control of imports and exports was statutorily provided for. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947) came into force

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

via), is approved by the prescribed authority and subsequently that Government or the prescribed authority is satisfied that— 22 (i) such fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution has not— (A) applied its income in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (a) of the third proviso

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

36 programmed to specific and particular needs and requirements. This Court held that in India the test to determine whether a property is “goods”, for the purpose of sales tax, is not confined to whether the goods are tangible or intangible or incorporeal. The   correct   test   would   be   to   determine   whether   an   item   is capable of abstraction, consumption

D.R. ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

1 JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4417 OF 2003 D.R. ENTERPRISES LTD. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The appellant herein is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court