4 and 7; (3) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala v. Larsen & Tubro Ltd.

1 SCC 170Reported decision2016#16336 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing 4 and 7; (3) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala v. Larsen & Tubro Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur vs. M/S Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

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

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…supra) being Civil Appeal Nos. 6429/2015 and 6430/2015 respectively. However, the same have been dismissed on separate issue of taxability of works contract in Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Kerala v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, (2016) 1 SCC 170. 3.8 It is further submitted that in the present dispute, the learned Tribunal has not at all applied its mind though it noted that it would require consideration of the contracts, to the aspect of works contract. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the present case. 3.9 It is further submitted that the amendment of 2005…

Central Board of Direct Taxes vs. Smt Anuradha Goyal

35. In view of the above, we pass the following:

RP/73/2021HC Karnataka18 Apr 2022

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,H.P.SANDESH

Section 114

…uld be characterised as vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.’ 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal 26 and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to re…

Rolta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2125/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh & Assessment Year-2005-06

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 245Section 245D

…d must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be 6 M/s Rolta Ltd. two opinions. (See MeeraBhanja vs. Nirmala Kumar Choudhury, (1955) 1 SCC 170) The expression "any mistake apparent from the record" occurring in section 154(1) of the Act has a wider content than the expression "error apparent on the face of the record" occurring in Order XL VII, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure. In ITO vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that th…

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/455/2017HC Telangana06 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

…d in (1980) 4 SCC 597, relevant paragraph- 3 and 4. (2) Accountant General & Anr Vs. S. Doriswamy & Ors, reported in (1981) 4 SCC 93, relevant paragraph- 4 and 7; (3) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Tubro Ltd, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 170, relevant paragraphs-29, 30, 31,32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 41. (4) Jayam and Company Vs Assistant Commissioner and Anr, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 125 (relevant paragraphs 2, 6, 16 to 19); (5) Union of India & Ors Vs N.S. Rathnam & Sons, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 681, relevant paragraph 1, 12, 13 to 21. 14. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate…

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/134/2016HC Telangana14 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY