CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar

Venkateswara Hatcharies Ltd vs. Jt Commissioner of I.T.[Assts]

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

…M'G'Brothers v' CITI and CIT v. Bankatlal Gopikishanz as well as decision of Supreme Court in Central Provinces Ore Co' Ltd' v' CIT3 and has a-ffirmed the ord.er passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' I I I ) I 154 ITR 695 2 154 ITR 713 3 (1986) 3 SCC 461 I I i24ia 7 . For the aforementioned reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. B. In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// "-.i3,i,TXXffS, o R RA S…

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

…tanji Ramji [AIR 1938 PC 67 : 65 IA 66 : 67 CLJ 153] and Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram [(1964) 3 SCR 164, 185-90 : AIR 1963 SC 1685] ). Our attention was, however, drawn by Mr Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar [(1985) 1 SCC 283 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 85 : (1985) 151 ITR 433] and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(1986) 3 SCC 461 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 601 : (1986) 160 ITR 961] , all that the Court pointed out was that provision for charging interest was, it seems, introduced in order to compensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then in…

Sri K S Ashok Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…egislation on the same subject, the provisions of the new Act will have to be looked into for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. (vi) The case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav -vs- State of Telangana and others [(2017) 1 SCC 283] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the Telangana(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act amendment where under the term of the Chairman and Vice Chairman was also curtailed. The amendment itself was clear that the Amendment Act is deemed to have come into force with effect from 01-01-2012, though it received the assen…

Mr. K.C. Shankare Gowda vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…egislation on the same subject, the provisions of the new Act will have to be looked into for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. (vi) The case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav -vs- State of Telangana and others [(2017) 1 SCC 283] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the Telangana(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act amendment where under the term of the Chairman and Vice Chairman was also curtailed. The amendment itself was clear that the Amendment Act is deemed to have come into force with effect from 01-01-2012, though it received the assen…

Mr. Rithesh Saliayan vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…egislation on the same subject, the provisions of the new Act will have to be looked into for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. (vi) The case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav -vs- State of Telangana and others [(2017) 1 SCC 283] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the Telangana(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act amendment where under the term of the Chairman and Vice Chairman was also curtailed. The amendment itself was clear that the Amendment Act is deemed to have come into force with effect from 01-01-2012, though it received the assen…

Sri Shrikant Konapur vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…egislation on the same subject, the provisions of the new Act will have to be looked into for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. (vi) The case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav -vs- State of Telangana and others [(2017) 1 SCC 283] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the Telangana(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act amendment where under the term of the Chairman and Vice Chairman was also curtailed. The amendment itself was clear that the Amendment Act is deemed to have come into force with effect from 01-01-2012, though it received the assen…

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

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2150 OF 2012 M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2562 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2013 A N D CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1522-1523 OF 2013 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. In all these appeals, identical question of law is involved and for the sake of brevity, we are discussing the question of law by taking note of the facts from Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2012. Civil Appeal No. 2150…