SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Price Waterhouse: (1997) 93 Taxman 588, the learned counsel has argued that when the words are clear and there is no obscurity, the intention of legislature has to be inferred only from the words used in the provision. 17 10.2.2. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act remains limited

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

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

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

3)   the   ‘other   sources’   referred   to   in Section   12   of   the   Indian   Income   Tax Act.” The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, repelled the contention of the appellant. He held that the business of the appellant consisted of ‘lending   money,   and   selling   agricultural   and other products to its constituents’ which could be planned ahead and required no provision for extraordinary   claims

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

price paid by the employees for exercise of the option. He, therefore, treated Rs. 165 crores as \023perquisite value\024 on which TDS was charged at 30%. It was held that the respondent-assessee was a defaulter for not deducting TDS under Section 192 amounting to Rs. 49.52 crores on the above perquisite value of Rs. 165 crores. Similar orders