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

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

price lower than the cost. The appellant was found to be the owner of the bitumen and the addition was sustained. This order was passed on 05.03.2009. 15. Thereupon, the appellant filed Review Petition No. 102 of 2009. The appellant purported to point out that in separate appeals filed for assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the same

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

price of shares. Therefore, in the mechanism of capital gains computation, what is relevant is not only the sale of shares but also the purchase of shares. Thus, the entire transaction of acquisition as well as sale 14 of shares, as a whole, is required to be examined, and a dissecting approach by examining only the sale of shares

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Transfer Pricing Adjustment, Capitalization of Licence Fees, 3G Spectrum Fees, Asset Restoration Cost Obligation including the effect of amalgamation of group entities which required thorough scrutiny and determination. G] During the pendency of said Writ Petition, a letter was issued by the respondent No.1 on 23.07.2018, the relevant portion of which was as under :- "The assessment years for which request

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

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

250 ITR 369 and the reasoning given by this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. R.C. Jain and others - 1981 (2) SCC 308. According to learned counsel, even after the amendment to Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act, by inserting the Explanation thereto, the AMC(s) continues to be covered by Item

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset, a further deduction, as specified in Section 48(2) of the Act, which is similar to standard deduction, becomes necessary. The basic controversy in this batch of civil appeals concerns the stage at which Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS vs. TELEVISION & COMPONENTS LTD.

6) The Collector after considering the evidence found that there was a deliberate mis-declaration of value, manipulation of documents, attempt to evade payment of full customs duty and attempt to circumvent the Import Control Regulations by the Respondent No. 1 and its Directors. According to the Collector, the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8 TDMs

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

250/- per trip. 5.1. On verifying the contents of record placed before him, the AO observed that while making payment to the truck operators/owners, the appellant had not deducted tax at source even if the net payment exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. Following this, a notice dated 05.11.2007 was issued to the appellant, requiring the details of amount paid