Income Tax, Cochin (2008) 8 SCC 739 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira Cement

2 SCC 439Reported decision2006#15209 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2020.

Judgments citing Income Tax, Cochin (2008) 8 SCC 739 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira Cement

M/S. Mac Industries, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Vapi

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

ITA 1036/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…nder Section 154 for rectifying such an intimation. 10. He reminds us referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 / 94 Taxman 271 and Deva Metal Powders (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax [2008] 2 SCC 439 that rectification under Section 154 can only be made if there is a glaring mistake of fact and law but not if the question is debatable. A point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 154. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the returns f…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax(E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/807/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…ITA Nos. 807, 810, 811, & 812/2015 Page 1 of 19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32 + ITA 807/2015 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Raman and Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocates along with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Accounts Officer, DBTB versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior standing counsel.…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax(E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/812/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…ITA Nos. 807, 810, 811, & 812/2015 Page 1 of 19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32 + ITA 807/2015 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Raman and Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocates along with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Accounts Officer, DBTB versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior standing counsel.…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax (E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/811/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…ITA Nos. 807, 810, 811, & 812/2015 Page 1 of 19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32 + ITA 807/2015 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Raman and Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocates along with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Accounts Officer, DBTB versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior standing counsel.…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax (E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/810/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…ITA Nos. 807, 810, 811, & 812/2015 Page 1 of 19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32 + ITA 807/2015 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Raman and Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocates along with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Accounts Officer, DBTB versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior standing counsel.…

Commnr. Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd

The appeal is allowed; the

C.A. No.-003051-003051 - 2003Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 11Section 35

…in which they were supplied to the customer. The framers were aware that the customer may merely use such goods as an input for the goods manufactured by him. Yet clause 4 provides in categoric terms that the 9 (2005) 8 SCC 308 10 (2006) 2 SCC 439 11 (2005) 7 SCC 528 9 exemption is lost if the goods bear the brand/trade name of another. Clause 4 does not state that the exemption is lost only in respect of such goods as reach the market. It does not carve out an exception for goods manufactured for captive consumption. The framers meant what they provided. The exemption w…