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

The appeals are allowed

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

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 6 (1) (1) BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

transfer pricing/arm’s length price to be determined under Chapter X of the IT Act, more particularly Sections 92, 92A to 92CA

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

price paid for preference share was exigible to capital gains tax. In coming to this conclusion, the Gujarat High Court had followed the Judgement under appeal in the present case. The aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court in Anarkali’s (supra) was challenged and this Court in the Anarkali Sarabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 224 I.T.R. 422 upheld

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

price. (v) The date of deposit of the bid amount of 92 crores by AOP-3, being the ₹ highest bid, is on November 17, 1994. 8) With the aforesaid background facts, we advert to the developments that have taken place on the income tax front. 9) Since the firm stood dissolved with effect from December 06, 1987, upto December

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Pricing Agreement with the CBDT5 under Section 92 CC of the Act. Thereafter, further revised return was filed on 25.11.2016 for AY 2015-16 and a modified return in terms of Section 92 CD of the Act was filed by the appellant on 22.02.2017 for AY 2014-15. C] For AY 2016-17, the appellant filed ITR on 30.11.2016 claiming

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

transfer of the CGP share and not by virtue of various clauses of SPA. In a case like the present one, where the structure has existed for a considerable length of time generating taxable revenues right from 1994 and where the court is satisfied that the transaction satisfies all the parameters of “participation in 66 investment” then in such

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

92 ELT 309] would not apply. That judgment was on interpretation of Section 11-B of the Act, which concerns claim for refund of duty by the assessee. That judgment was in the context of the price list approved on 14-5-1983. In that case, the assessee had made a claim for refund of excise duty on the differential

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

92,223 Rs. 20,612 have been declared by the company, i.e. 90% 5 Dividend declared by Nil Nil the assessee company 6 Debit balance in profit Rs. 91,472 Rs.20,508 and loss account 7 Capital reserve shown in Rs.7,45,109 Rs.7,45,109 the balance-sheet ___________________________________________________________________________ ________ The petitioner’s business of agricultural activities had resulted in losses

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

RAGHUNATH PRASAD PODDAR ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

In the result we allow these appeals, vacate the answers

92 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 12, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. No. 162 of 1967 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1037 to 1039 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 5, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. No. 181 of 1966 and Civil

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

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

92,29,749 2. 27.05.2019 Non­fulfilment   of   obligations under 37 EPCG Licenses Rs. 151,33,06,859 3. 29.05.2019 Non   clearing   of   imported goods from Jawaharlal Nehru Port   Trust,   Nhava   Sheva, Maharashtra Rs. 22,70,50,898 4. 18.09.2019 Dues for all cargo in custom bounded   warehouses   in Gujarat Rs. 763,12,72,645 9 On 25.02.2020, the NCLT allowed

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

92,000.00. The difference was of Rs. 8,000.00. The assessee has revalued the security. The assessee offered the notional profit for taxation, as explained herein above, on accrual basis in the appropriate assessment year during which   the   assessee   held   the   security.   This difference   could   have   been   treated   by   the department as interest on securities under section 18. However

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SURAT

transferred to such other company having the same objects as the assessee, to be determined by the members of the assessee at or before the time of the dissolution or in default? by the High Court of Judicature that has or may acquire jurisdiction in the matter. The income and property of the assessee were thus liable to be applied

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,NAGPUR vs. M/S UNIVERSAL FERRO & ALLIED CHEM.LD.&AN

Bench: This Court. 2. The Facts In Brief Giving Rise To The Present Appeals Are As Under:

transfer   to   another division / unit of the same company.”  40. We will now deal with the next submission made by Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel, to the effect that   under   proviso   to   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   3   of   the Central Excise Act, 1944, an EOU is liable to pay duty on the goods brought

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

transfer shall be deemed to be export out of India of such goods and merchandise and the value of such goods or merchandise declared in the shipping bill or bill of export as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed

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

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