14 Page 15 JUDGMENT Similarly in G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh

2 SCC 90Reported decision2009#6899 most cited

What is 14 Page 15 JUDGMENT Similarly in G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh authority for?

When assessing the value of goods sold in separate transactions, separate prices charged for different buyers can be examined under Section 4(1)(a) proviso to determine if they are justified.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 1998 to 2025.

Also referred to as

G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner · Trade Tax · Uttar Pradesh · Section 4(1)(a) · valuation of goods · separate price · wholesale buyer · price fixation

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 54F

Judgments citing 14 Page 15 JUDGMENT Similarly in G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh

Sanjay Gulabchand Gupta, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 210/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…vision, then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. Madras High Court has made this observations. Following decisions of Supreme Court in CCE VS Favourite Industries, (2012) 7 SCC 153 and GP Ceramics (P) Ltd. VS Dy. Commissioner, Trade Tax (2009) 2 SCC 90). ii) Significant amount of construction expenses were already incurred in the construction (13645593/-). The Assessee himself stated that in AY 2014-15 & 15-16, entire Capital amount was utilised mostly in giving advance for various goods and services for residential house and claim was made u/s 54F. Courts have consistently held that deduction u/s…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -International Taxation-1 vs. Reema Chawla

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/168/2024HC Delhi11 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 54

…4 SCC 256 ; [1990] SCC (Tax) 422 and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1992] Supp (1) SCC 21 to which reference has been made earlier.)" 22. In G. P. Ceramics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax (2009) 2 SCC 90, this court has held : (SCC pages 101-02, para 29) 29. It is now a well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally. [See Commissioner…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -International Taxation-1 vs. Reema Chawla

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 168 / 2024HC Delhi11 Mar 2024
Section 54

…4 SCC 256 ; [1990] SCC (Tax) 422 and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1992] Supp (1) SCC 21 to which reference has been made earlier.)" 22. In G. P. Ceramics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax (2009) 2 SCC 90, this court has held : (SCC pages 101-02, para 29) 29. It is now a well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally. [See Commissioner…

Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. DCIT, C/o. IPSAA House ANM & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon PAN: AACPA2412L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv Revenue by: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 30/04/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, individual against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Gu…

ACIT, Cir-32, Kolkata vs. Jitendra Seth, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1420/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…eral construction. (See Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. [(1990) 4SCC 256: 1990 SCC (Tax) 422] and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. CCT [1992 Supp (1) SCC 21] to which reference has been made earlier.)” 22. In G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. v. CTT (2009) 2 SCC 90], this Court has held: (SCC pp. 101-102, para 29) “29. It is now a well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally. [See ITA No.1420/Kol/20…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs. Hindustan National Glass & Inds. Ltd

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed

C.A. No.-001829-001829 - 2008Supreme Court14 Jan 2016
Section 11ASection 11A(1)

…per cent discount. Though the quantum had not been stated precisely, yet it has been found as a matter of fact that M/s. Coca Cola India and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. had given advances for 90% and 100% respectively for their purchases. 2 (1995) 2 SCC 90 Page 6 JUDGMENT 6 9. In Metal Box India Ltd. (supra), the Court while dealing with the transaction between the appellant therein and M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd., who was a whole-sale buyer of the appellant's goods, had accepted the view of the tribunal and expressed thus: “On the facts on record, therefore, it must be held that the Tribunal was per…

M/S Star Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs(Imports) Raigad

C.A. No.-006088-006088 - 2013Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 108Section 110Section 111Section 3(1)

…iberally. An eligibility criteria, therefore, deserves a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning.” Similarly in G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 2 SCC 90, this Court held: “29. It is not a well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally. [See CTT v. DSM Group of Industries,…

M/S Star Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs(Imports) Raigad

C.A. No.-006088-006088 - 2013Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 108Section 110Section 111Section 3(1)

…iberally. An eligibility criteria, therefore, deserves a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning.” Similarly in G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 2 SCC 90, this Court held: “29. It is not a well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally. [See CTT v. DSM Group of Industries,…

M/S Ivrcl. Infrastructure & Projects Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs, Chennai

The appeal is dismissed with

C.A. No.-005282-005282 - 2004Supreme Court15 Apr 2015
Section 25(1)

…Page 1 JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5282 OF 2004 M/S. IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD. …APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows. The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract by the National Highways Aut…

M/S Ivrcl. Infrastructure & Projects Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs, Chennai

The appeal is dismissed with

C.A. No.-005282-005282 - 2004Supreme Court15 Apr 2015
Section 25(1)

…Page 1 JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5282 OF 2004 M/S. IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD. …APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows. The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract by the National Highways Aut…

Commissioner of Income Tax - Xv vs. Bharti Mishra

ITA - 567 / 2013HC Delhi18 Dec 2013
Section 54Section 54F

…ITA No. 567/2013 Page 1 of 13 $~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 567/2013 Date of decision: 18th December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus BHARTI MISHRA ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): Learned counsel for the appel…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. M/S. Favourite Industries

C.A. No.-000949-000949 - 2004Supreme Court29 Feb 2012
Section 11ASection 58

…nion of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. and Mangalore Chemic- als and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes to which reference has been made earlier.)” 17. In G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 2 SCC 90, this Court has held: “29. It is now a well-established prin- ciple of law that whereas eligibility cri- teria laid down in an exemption notifica- tion are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the ap- plicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liber- 1 JUDGMENT ally. [See CTT v. DSM Group…

Commnr. of Customs(Import) vs. M/S. Konkan Synthetic Fibres

C.A. No.-000951-000951 - 2004Supreme Court29 Feb 2012

Bench: The Customs Authorities, Inter Alia, Seeking Clearance Of The Same By Extending The Benefit Of The Notification No.17/01-Cus Dated 1.3.2001, As Amended By Notification No.44/01- Cus, Dated 26.04.2001. The Customs Authorities Had Refused To Accept The Request Of The Assessee & Accordingly, Had Directed The Assessee To Pay The Duty Under The Provisions Of The Customs Act, 1962 (“The Act” For Short).

Section 25(1)

…dia v. Wood Papers Ltd. and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes to which reference has been made earlier.)” 11 14.In G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 2 SCC 90,this Court has observed thus: “29. It is now a well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally. [See CTT v.…

Pernod Ricard India(P) Ltd vs. Commr.of Customs, Icd Tughlakabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the importer-

C.A. No.-005840-005840 - 2008Supreme Court26 Jul 2010
Section 111Section 130ESection 18(2)Section 28

…. It was, thus, pleaded that the order of the Tribunal, approving the application of Rule 6 deserves to be set aside. In the alternative, it was urged that if this Court comes to the conclusion that Rule 6 is to be applied for 1 (1995) 2 SCC 90 determining the value of CAB, comparison should be made for each year with the lowest price of other imports during the year with at least 40% reduction from the list price to take care of quantity differences. 18.Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharya, while supporting the decision of the Tribunal, in so far as the question of applicability of R…

Kirloskar Bros. Ltd vs. Comnr. of Central Excise, Pune

C.A. No.-006938-006938 - 1999Supreme Court07 Mar 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune
Section 4Section 4(1)Section 4(4)(c)

…s. Merely because no minimum number of sales was indicated while deciding the persons to whom concession is to be given, that does not per se make the claim irrational. Reliance was placed on Metal Box India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, [1995] 2 SCC 90 to submit that even a single individual whose transactions were considerable can constitute a class for granting discount. As discount was not based on any extra commercial consideration it was deductible in terms of Section 4(1) (a) (proviso) (i) of the Act. Reference was also made to a decision of the Special Bench of CEGAT, New Delhi in Gora Mal…

Vst Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyd

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-002524-002524 - 1992Supreme Court08 Jan 1998
For Respondent: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD
Section 45

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7 PETITIONER: VST INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/1998 BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2523 and 2611 of 1992 J U D G M E N T Kirpal.J. These appeals Involve for decision the question whether notional interest on the Interest free security deposit received should be considered for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value under the Excise Act by Including In…

14 Page 15 JUDGMENT Similarly in G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh (2 SCC 90) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax