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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

transfer of the CGP share and not by virtue of various clauses of SPA. In a case like the present one, where the structure has existed for a considerable length of time generating taxable revenues right from 1994 and where the court is satisfied that the transaction satisfies all the parameters of “participation in 66 investment” then in such

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. B.V. JEWELS AND ORS.'

The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated

125(2) of the Act. (4) Penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- was imposed on M/s B.V. Star under Section 112(a). (5) The demand of duty of Rs.12,94,12,122/- under the proviso to Section 28 (2) of the Act on M/s B.V. Jewels was confirmed. Similar amount was imposed as penalty in terms of Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Section 14 Rules have been framed, In the present controversy we are only concerned with the interpretation of Rule 9(l)(c) read with the Note of the Rules. These Rules apply to imported goods where a duty of customs is chargeable by reference to their value. Trans-action value" under clause (f) of Rule 2 has been defined

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SURAT

transferred to such other company having the same objects as the assessee, to be determined by the members of the assessee at or before the time of the dissolution or in default? by the High Court of Judicature that has or may acquire jurisdiction in the matter. The income and property of the assessee were thus liable to be applied

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 forums

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

125 ITR 525 : (1980) Supp. SCC 614], this Court interpreted Section 9(1)(i) and the Explanation thereto on the factual matrix obtaining therein that the statutory agent exported his goods to Japan and France where they were sold through the assessee and the entire sales price was received in India by the said agent who made credit entries

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

transfer to the copy/copies any copyright or other marking on the Software or Documentation. d) not use the Software or Documentation for any other purpose than permitted in this Article 20, License or sell or in any manner alienate or part with its possession. e) not use or transfer the Software and/or the Documentation outside India without the written consent

INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of confiscation thereof.” The Order dated 29.12.2015 proceeded to impose penalty as under:- Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 2018 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 7 “(e) I impose a penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) on M/s. Indusind Media & Communication Ltd., Mumbai under Section

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

125 + Rs. 2,243)=Rs. 23,03,363". The Tribunal accordingly came to the conclusion that out of the distributable surplus an amount of Rs. 57,23,528 was attributable to accumulated profits and hence was dividend within the meaning of section 2(6A) (c) of the Act. The assessee s appeal was allowed to that extent. Both the assessee

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to prevent vagrancy implies a power to allow interim maintenance; power conferred on a local authority to issue licences for holding 'hats' or fairs implies incidental power to fix days therefore; power conferred to compel cane growers to 23 Inserted vide Medical Council (Amendment

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

125 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’). FACTS 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) dated 19th January, 2009 was entered into between Digitally signed by JATINDER KAUR Date

SAHARANPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ETC.ETC

transfer 124 of the asset and will not be a wobbling or fluctuating one. [138G-H, 139A] 5.6 There is no difficulty or anomaly resulting from the Revenue’s interpretation in the Calculation of assessable profits under Section 41(2) or the allowances under Section 32(1)(iii). [139B, E] Birmingham Corporation v. Barnes [1935] 3 I.T.R. Supp

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant part

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

The appeals are allowed

transfer of technology agreement between the two parties and thus cannot but be termed to be a "technical know-how in the shape of drawings, designs, charts, plans and other literature" \026 these items have been ascribed to be a part of the plant for the purposes of depreciation allowance in terms of Sections

M/S. BANGALORE CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

125 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16863 of 2010), CIVIL APPEAL NO.273 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16880 of 2010), CIVIL APPEAL NO.274 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16881 of 2010), CIVIL APPEAL NO.275 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil