COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. EQUINOX SOLUTION PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

price and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act could not be applied to such sale. He held that it was not a case of sale of any individual or one block asset which may attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act. He then examined the case of the assessee in the context

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

transferred a sum of Rs. 6 crores on 01.06.2016 and Rs. 4 crores on 21.06.2016 to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd. The assessee secured the loan by way of a mortgage of the property forming part of Survey No. 31/1-A situated in Village Bambolim, Distt. North Goa. It is an admitted fact that the assessee became the Director

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

block of shares, which was sold at the price of INR 30 per share (when the listed market price of the share was only INR 3 per share). It is stated in the said MoU that the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,83,270/- has since been paid by the SWC group to Shri Gupta, as a result of which

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. FRICK INDIA LTD

price and http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7 the declared assessable value for compressor and in the circumstances the assessee became liable to pay differential duty amounting to Rs.4,46,19,392.65 on the accessories which stood worked out on the basis of includibility of the value of bought-out items + duty on the parts

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

assessable to the sales tax? He submitted that the principal contention of the appellants before this Court in the case of the  TATA Consultancy Services  (supra) was that the canned software was “intangible property” and hence would not come within the definition of the “goods”.  He would submit that the   issue   was   clearly   not   whether   the   canned   software   was “goods

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

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

assessing officer would have to find that the appellant by the deliberate act of short delivering the goods and continuing with the possession of the goods not only contrary to the contract but also to the law of the land, both in the Carriers Act 1865 and breaking the penal law as well, the appellant must be treated

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES

blocks, classifiable under sub-heading 2515.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, from various countries such as Italy, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, Spain, China, Greece etc. in the year 1999. These goods were covered by Exim Code No. 25151200 of ITC [HS] Classification of Export & Import Items 1997-2002, and required a specific licence for importation under the EXIM Policy

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

block of assets” shall mean- (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. 9. We also quote hereinbelow relevant Rules of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited as they stood at the relevant time: “Membership a Personal Privilege

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

assessable value of Rs.7,98,33,370/- should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act and penalty should not be imposed on each of them under Section 112 of the Act. Mr. Chand Seth, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company replied to the show cause notice stating therein that he being the Chairman