Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India

4 SCC 214Reported decision2005#20744 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2017.

Judgments citing Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India

Hemendra Devendra Shah, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3261/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3261/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Hemendra Devendra Shah, No.14, First Avenue, The Income Tax Officer, Harrington Road, Chetpet, V. Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai - 600 031. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Amzps 6457 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT

…selling the land without anything more by itself can never be decisive to say that the assessee used the land for non-agricultural purposes. We may also refer to a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court [2006] 4 SCC 214 where it was observed that the fact that agricultural land in question is included in urban area without more, held not enough to conclude that the user of the same had been altered with passage of time. Thus, the fact that the land in question in the instant case is brought in industrial zone cannot be a determining factor by itself to say that th…

Commnr., Central Excise & Customs, Kerala vs. M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

C.A. No.-006770-006770 - 2004Supreme Court20 Aug 2015

…e included in the value of the goods.” For the same reason the Centre cannot include the value of the SIM cards, if they are found ultimately to be goods, in the cost of the service. As was held by us in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 214] , SCC at p. 228, para 23:- “This mutual exclusivity which has been reflected in Article 246(1) means that taxing entries must be construed so as to maintain exclusivity. Although generally speaking, a liberal interpretation must be given to taxing entries, this would not bring within its purview a tax on subject-matter which a fair reading of the…

Commnr., Central Excise & Customs, Kerala vs. M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

C.A. No.-006770-006770 - 2004Supreme Court20 Aug 2015

…e included in the value of the goods.” For the same reason the Centre cannot include the value of the SIM cards, if they are found ultimately to be goods, in the cost of the service. As was held by us in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 214] , SCC at p. 228, para 23:- “This mutual exclusivity which has been reflected in Article 246(1) means that taxing entries must be construed so as to maintain exclusivity. Although generally speaking, a liberal interpretation must be given to taxing entries, this would not bring within its purview a tax on subject-matter which a fair reading of the…

M/S Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Commr.of Central Excise, Thiruvanthapuram

The appeal is dismissed with costs

C.A. No.-005832-005832 - 2007Supreme Court12 Dec 2007
For Respondent: Commr. of Central Excise,Thiruvananthapuram
Section 65Section 66Section 68

…cipient was illegal. The said provision, however, were amended with retrospective effect. Challenge of the constitutional validity of the said amendment, came up for consideration in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. [(2005) 4 SCC 214] wherein a Division Bench categorically held that the basis of reconsideration of the decisions in Laghu Udyog Bharati\022s case was taken away stating: http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8 \02322. As we have said, Rules 2(1)(d)(xii) and (xvii) had been held to be illegal in Laghu Udyog Bharati only because the charging…