RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

price of the land fixed by the Collector to the land owners. From the copy of the jamabandi attached with this file, khasra Nos. 361 and 364 measuring 5 kanals and 7 marlas were not on the lease with the college. But the Management is claiming compensation for this land also. In these circumstances, the college management cannot be awarded

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

48,55,840/- by holding that there is extinguishment of rights of 153340900 shares when no such extinguishment of rights is made out by Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.01.08 11:04:03 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 the assessee as required under section 2(47) of the Act and there is no reduction in the face value

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

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 48, the fair market value of the asset 4 (1981) 2 SCC 460 : 128 ITR 294 5 (2012) 345 ITR 421 (Delhi High Court) 6 (2016) 130 DTR 0222 (Kar) Page 18 JUDGMENT 18 on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result

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

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) MUMBAI vs. M/S GANPATI OVERSEAS THR. ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA

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

transfer of the differential amount. Therefore, the adjudicating authority opined that he had no reason to accept the plea of the respondents that the statements of Mr. Yashpal Sharma and Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma were not voluntary and should not be relied upon. This plea was taken only as an afterthought. 14 6.3. Contention of the respondents that the declared

ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

price is paid, the US companies go out of the dragnet of Indian taxation. He also adverted to Article 5(6) to state that the mere fact that a 100% subsidiary may be carrying on business in India does not by itself means that the holding company would have a PE in India. Further, according to learned counsel

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

48 (iv). Inapplicability of the “Utility Test” and the ‘part’ v. ‘accessory’ debate ...... 49 (v). Excess collection of excise duty from buyer is no proof of excisability ....... 49 Civil Appeal Nos. 856-857 of 2011 Page 2 of 57 (II). Whether the show cause notice is legal and valid under the extended limitation period as provided under the proviso

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

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

Section 406 makes it abundantly clear that any such act by a carrier attracts the offence under Section 406. The Court in other words would have to allow the commission of an offence by the appellant in the process of finding that 71 the appellant is the owner of the goods. In other words, proceeding on the basis that there

COMMISSIONER OF CENTAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S. MERINO PANEL PRODUCT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

48 of 1 | P a g e Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2022.12.05 17:41:16 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As excisable goods, the value at which the Respondent was selling these goods would be the determinant for the amount of tax recoverable by the Appellant. Following an audit conducted

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 33 of the IBC states as follows : “33. Initiation of Liquidation - (1) Where the Adjudicating Authority— (a) before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under section 56, as the case may be, does

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

price of total seized and confiscated Gold 240.040 kgs came to be 11.04 crores and the redemption fine cannot be in any way less than this. 21. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, it is candidly recorded that the quantity of redemption fine should be related to the market value of gold on 7.12.1994 i.e. the date of adjudication when

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. EQUINOX SOLUTION PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

48 (2) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly reworked the claim of the deduction treating the same to be falling under Section 50 (2) of the Act and framed the assessment order. (6) The assessee, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the CIT (appeals). By order dated 06.10.1995, the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

48,985/- and determined the profit of Rs.1,29,35,557/- under Section 41(2) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was contended that no profit under Section 41(2) could be taxed in the assessment year under consideration because claim of the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

price, evidenced by the Receipt. Quick Heal   grants   the   Licensee,   a   non­exclusive   and   non­ transferable right. Quick Heal reserves all rights not expressly granted, and retains the title and ownership of the software, including all subsequent copies in any media. This software and the accompanying written materials   are   the   property   of   Quick   Heal   and   are copyrighted.   Copying   of   the   software

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the judgment dated 20.7.2001 delivered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("CEGAT") in Appeal No. E/1758/2000. 2. The issue which arises in this civil appeal is as to whether in the absence of any "sale", rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would have any application

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

price of services they supply, i.e., renting/leasing/letting out, etc. Further, CGST is leviable on the supply of these services, resulting in tax on tax or the cascading effect of tax. Moreover, due to the denial of ITC, the assessees have to bear the tax burden. Thus, the interpretation put by revenue to clauses (c) and (d) of Section

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