ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer in certain cases by amendment in subsection (3A) to section 92CA of the Income-tax Act. 57.6 The provisions of section 153 of the Income-tax Act as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Act shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st of June

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

transferred from one company to another; depots of Shaw Wallace and DIL were in the same premises; DIL sends monthly newsletters to Shaw Wallace showing production, despatches, purpose, technical problems, quality problems, details of power consumption etc. - and Shaw Wallace fixes the price of DIL products; and unsecured loans of approximately Rs.55 lakhs were given by Shaw Wallace

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

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

50 per share.” 12. The following principles are discernible from the aforesaid decision of this Court: 10 a. Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is an inclusive definition, inter alia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right therein amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. While the taxpayer continues to remain

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

price and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act could not be applied to such sale. He held that it was not a case of sale of any individual or one block asset which may attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act. He then examined the case of the assessee in the context

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

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

50. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix tariff values for any class of imported goods or export goods, having regard to the trend of value of such or like goods, and where any such tariff

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

SHRI KARTIKEYA vs. .SARABHAI. VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

50/- per share. The appellant had originally purchased the preference shares of the face value of rs. 1000/- per share at a price of Rs. 420/- per share. At the time of first reduction, he got back Rs. 500/- per share in cash. At the time of second reduction, with which we are concerned in this case, the appellant

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

50; (1A) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)], if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

50,400. Therefore, the sale consideration had been arrived at after taking into account the value of plant, machinery and dead stock as computed by the valuer and, consequently, it was held that the surplus arising on the sale was taxable under section 41(2) of the Act and not as capital gains. In the circumstances, the judgment of this

M/S COAL INDIA LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(PORT) KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (‘Cestat’ For Short Digitally Signed By Ashish Kondle Date: 2025.05.01 11:42:33 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

50; (1A) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. MADURAI MILLS CO. LIMITED

price realised should be included in the total income of the partnership under the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii). This Court in this context observed that a partner may in an action for dissolution insist that the assets of the partnership be realised by sale of its assets, but property allotted to a partner in satisfaction

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

50] 14. This view of the law was reiterated in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 349. Interestingly, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, cost of transportation from the factory gate to the place of removal not forming part of excise duty was conceded by the revenue. 15. Section 4 as substituted

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

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

50 TPH MCR Capacity and 45 Kg/cm2(g) working pressure bagasse fired boiler’ so that a steam generating plant could be commissioned by 31.10.2001 (hereinafter, “ the contract”). 5. On 28.04.2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, (hereinafter, “ the Assistant Commissioner”) issued a show- cause-cum-demand notice (Sr. No. 4/2005/CEX/dated 2005) (hereinafter, “the show cause notice

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

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

50 wealth for it would not be an asset belonging to “the assessee”. The decisions under the Income Tax Act were distinguished. In regard to R.B. Jodha Mal (supra), this Court finds the following discussion: “17. This Court had occasion to discuss Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the meaning of the expression “owner” in the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY SOUTH, BOMBAY vs. MESSRS OGALE GLASS WORKS LTD., OGALE WADI

50 of the Indian Contract Act, or the above proposition of law. 24 186 Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Bishop (L.R. [1902] A.C. 287 at p. 296), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kameshwar Singh, ([1933] 1 I.T.R. 107), Raghunandan Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (60 I.A. 133: [19331 1 I.T.R. 113), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maheswari Saran Singh