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

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

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

transfer, went into the Consolidated Fund of the States and on this basis constitutional protection under Article 289 were claimed as a result of which, these amounts could neither be taxed in the hands of the State Government Undertakings nor in the hands of the respective States.  Precisely the underlined   spirit   in   bringing   out   the   said   amendment   by   inserting Section

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

transferring information abroad would not establish that the service is rendered from India and not in India; that all receipts cannot qualify for concession; that the range of services referred to in Section 80-O of the Act have the thread of connectivity in all the intellectual endeavours mentioned therein. The High Court summed up its discussion in the following

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

271, were correct. CEGAT proceeded to state that after a survey on the entire case law, the Larger Bench in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. took the view that the law laid down by two-member Bench in Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. did not lay down correct law and accordingly overruled it. The decisions in other cases were correct and the said