ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BA or other person referred to in section 158BD. (16) The provisions of this section shall not apply

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

143(3) vide order dated 29.02.2000, the Assessing Officer treated the shares of JFAL as stock-in- trade, denied the exemption under Section 47(vii), and brought to tax the value of JSL shares as business income, computed with reference to their market value. The said order was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3.4. On further appeals

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

143(2) on 26 September 2013, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) to the amalgamating company. 9 On 22 January 2016, the Transfer Pricing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm’s length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the  expiry of four years from the end of the  relevant assessment  year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

143 or Section 144, be liable to pay super-tax at the rate of- (a) fifty per cent, in the case of an investment company. (b) thirty-seven per cent, in the case of a trading company, and (c) twenty-five per cent, in the case of any other company. (2) The Income-tax Officer shall not make an order

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

143 or section 144 or section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction), such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

143(3) of the Act by the   Assistant   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,   Circle­1(1), Thiruvananthapuram   vide   order   of   assessment   dated   28.12.2017. Debits contained in the Profit & Loss Account of the appellant with respect to payment of gallonage fee, licence fee, shop rental (kist) and surcharge   on   sales   tax,   amounting   to   a   total   sum   of Rs.811,90,88,115/­ were disallowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

143(2) of the Act. One of the items for issuing the said notice was the quantum of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessee had computed the allowable deduction under Section 80HHC without taking into account in the total turnover the sales tax and excise duty. The assessee was asked to explain why the total turnover should

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

143(3)/144 of the IT Act, the High Court, after considering section 80P(4) of the IT Act, various provisions of the Kerala Act, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the bye-laws of the Societies, etc., held that once a Co-operative Society is classified by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Kerala Act as being

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

143 D. Trade promotion bodies .......................................................................................................................... 144 E. Non-statutory bodies ............................................................................................................................... 144 F. Sports associations.................................................................................................................................. 145 G. Private Trusts .......................................................................................................................................... 145 H. Application of interpretation................................................................................................................... 146 4 1. Leave granted in all matters where leave has not already been granted. C.A. No. 21762/2017 (Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Exemptions v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority) is taken as the lead matter. 2. Religious

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

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD

Appeal stands allowed

143) ELT 17] and Collector of Central Excise, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (156) ELT 161] on one hand and the decision of nine- Judge Constitution Bench in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536] on the other, a two- Judge Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2003 has referred the following question

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

143(1) on November 8, 2000. The case stood reopened under Section 147 and Notice u/s 148 stood issued to the assessee on 16.7.2002. The assessee filed its return of income under protest. The assessee filed its return of income pursuant to the Notice u/s 148 once again declaring loss of Rs. 10,77,276/-, the same

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

price from the land procurers, i.e. the Appellant and Mr. Surendra Reddy. As per Clause 10 of this MOU, Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) was paid to the procurers for arranging facilitation of transfer of land from the landowners to Mr. Hashim Moosa/his nominees. No other payment, except a reimbursement under Clause 11, was contemplated under this

ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT V. PATEL

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) and determined the   total   income   of   the   Respondent   at   Rs   7,23,11,013/­ against the declared income. (c) Being   aggrieved,   the   Respondent   preferred   an   appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being No. CAB/I­643/2000­2001.   After   considering   the   case,   learned CIT   (Appeals),   vide   order