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

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

256 (6th Cir 1943)], F 2d at p. 259.” 69. It is inconceivable that there is a creditor and debtor relationship between the respondent as issuing bank and the Card Association or the acquiring bank or even the merchant establishment. The respondent cannot be described as a lender of money and the other three players, as just hereinbefore described

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the Act). First question for which leave to appeal was granted by this Court is as under: - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Tribunal was right in holding

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

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the High Court of the following questions of law : " 1. Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gains of Rs. 7,45,109 could not be considered for purposes of computing the distributable income

UCO BANK vs. COMM.OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL

256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The following question was referred to the High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the CIT’s order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act holding that when the assessment was completed, the only paper available

THE K.C.P. LTD vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax deleting Rs.14,96,130/- being the excess realisation

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed accordingly

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that Oxford University Press, Bombay, which is part of Oxford University, is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? The question was answered by the High Court in the negative

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES

price of the imported goods was mis-declared in the bills of entry. 4. The goods imported by the respondents were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act. However, the importers were given an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine, which was 3 fixed, adopting the margin of profit as the basis, under Section

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval

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

256 (E), dated the 16th March, 1995, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of such final products at the time of their clearance from the factory; or (b) if the exempted goods are other than those described in condition