THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

prices to members. 22. Act as an agent in collection of premium of LIC, rent of electricity board, telecom and other public sector undertakings. 23. To associate more people to the cooperative institutions by organising cooperative education and campaigns. 24.To borrow funds from District Cooperative Banks, Govt and other institutions approved by Registrar. 25. To render services like collection

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

transfer of possession. However we 17 need not say anything further as it is not necessary for the cases at hand. Section 3 is the charging section. With effect from 1.7.2000 under the Finance Act of 2000, Section 4 of the Act which is crucial for our case reads as follows: “4. Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 MUMBAI vs. M/S S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. Civil Appeal No. 6144 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.12126 of 2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai vs. M/s. S.G. Asia Holding (I) Pvt. Ltd. 9 ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

6 SCC 714 34 be regarded as trade or business. Reliance was placed upon State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturer’s Organisation52. 51. It was submitted that in the absence of profit motive, the activity is not trade, commerce or business - within the meaning of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961. Reliance was placed

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

6. In General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A. Khader [General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A. Khader, (1986) 2 SCC 656], the effect of amalgamation of two companies was considered. M/s General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. was tenant of a premises under an agreement providing that the tenant shall not sublet the premises or any portion thereof

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

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

6 9. The Revenue went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue and affirming the order passed by the ITAT observed in para 8 as under: “Undisputed facts are, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court of Bombay, number of shares has been reduced

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

2 4. Keeping the question aforesaid in view, we may briefly summarise the relevant factual and background aspects of this case while indicating at the outset that the matter relating to the assessment in question, before reaching the High Court in the reference proceedings, had undergone two rounds of proceedings up to the stage of appeal before ITAT. THE ASSESSEE

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 is received by him. (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2) shall apply to the following

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

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

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

Section 3 of the Act. 6. Learned Counsel for the revenue urged that even if the goods were capable of being brought to the market it would attract levy. True, but erection and installation of a plant cannot be held to be excisable goods. If such wide meaning is assigned it would result in bringing in its ambit structures, erections

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

transfer, in a scheme of amalgamation, of any asset by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company where the amalgamated company is an Indian company; Section 41 is under the heading Computation of Business Income. The entire section makes it abundantly clear that income arising as provided therein is to be considered as income of business or profession

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS xxx xxx xxx Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly - You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law nothwithstanding this limitation.” “4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act provides for the rates at which the customs duty is levied under the Customs Act, 1962. As specified in First and the Second Schedule, Chapter 98 inter alia applies to passengers baggage and heading No. 98.03 states that on all dutiable articles, imported by a passenger or a member of a crew

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

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

6. Reply of the respondents was found to be not acceptable. Therefore, the case was taken up for adjudication. Accordingly, the case was transferred to Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-1), New Customs House, Mumbai for the purpose of adjudication. During the adjudication process, personal hearing was afforded to the respondents. 6.1. Adjudicating authority noted that the customs department had alleged

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

6 ‘CIT(A)’ for short 8 found that the appellant had, for its convenience and to avoid the rigour of Section 40A(3) of the Act, chose to split the payments into two parts but the entries of such split payments were available consecutively in the cash book. Thus, while not accepting such methodology, the CIT(A) observed that even

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the receipt of interest from the fixed deposits   was   an   income   not   exempt   from taxation   under   the   CBR   Notification   No.   35 dated 20­10­1934 and No. 33 dated 18­8­1945.” In paragraphs 9 and 10, this Court proceeded to hold thus: “9. In the instant case the cooperative society (the appellant

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

2 of 18 Mr. Hashim Moosa on the one hand and the Appellant as well as Mr. Surendra Reddy on the other, for procuring lands at a certain 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

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares