JAMES ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR OFTHE ESTATE OF THELATE HENR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY

transfer for the purposes of s. 12B, but as soon as there was a sale of the capital assets and profits or gains arose therefrom, the liability to tax also arose, whether the sale was by the administrator or by the legate. Sri Kannan Rice Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, (1954) 26 I.T.R. 351; Commissioner of Income

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

12B of TT Co. for the assessment year 1949-SO, no other amount could be included in the computation of the accumulated profits available for distribution under section 2(6A) (c) of the Act. The Income-tax officer rejected this 149 contention and allowed only a deduction of Rs. 27,000 being payment on share premium account and included

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

price." On September 26, 1946, there was a meeting of the Board of Directors of the assessee company. At that meeting, the Board considered the offers made by the Dalmia Company and resolved to accept the offers. The Board further stated in its minutes that out of the total amount received from the sale of the shares

MISS DHUN DADABHOY KAPADIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

section 12B(ii), the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction from the full value of the consideration of Rs. 45.262.50 nP. received for the capital asset, the sum of Rs. 37,630 or any similar sum?" The case arose out of proceedings for assessment of the ap- pellant for the assessment year 1957-58, the corresponding previous year being

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CIRCLE II vs. THE NATIONAL SYNDICATE, BOMBAY

price. One question, among others, was whether the second proviso to s. 10 (2)(vii). applied. The Madras High Court ob. served : (1) (1960) 40 I.T.R. 38. 237 "...... in the present case the sale of the machinery took place during the year of account, and it was used by Free Press Company for at least a part of the year

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

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE-III,DELHI

12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the said inputs are used in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that rule. 2Where a manufacturer avails of CENVAT credit in respect of any inputs, except inputs intended to be used as fuel, and manufactures such final products which are chargeable