ITR 737)(SC) (ii). KM Sharma Vs. ITO (254 ITR 772, 779)(SC) (iii). Aditya Cement Staff Club v. UOI (

Lekshmi Traders vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

…42 (PC), India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT (1955] 27 [TR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT (1963] 48 ITR (SC) 1; CWT v. Sharean Kumar Swarup and Sons [1994] 6 SCC 6231; CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 1 SCC 3702; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC)). Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Ed., Lexis Nexis in support of the aforesaid proposition put forth as an illustration that since charge made by the legislator in procedural provisions is excepted to be for the general benefit of litigants and others, it is presumed that it applies to pending as well as futu…

Shri Shri Nishant Jain, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…e for general benefit of litigations and others, it is presumed that it applies to pending as well as future proceedings. In this respect we rely on following:- 7 a) CWT vs Sharvan Kumar Swaroop & Sons (1994) ITO ITR 886 (SC) b) Associated Cement Co. Ltd CTO 48 STC 466 at 476 (SC) Thus, action of Assessing Officer in disallowing interest of Rs. 2,03,816/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is not at all justified and deserves to be deleted. 6. It is further submitted by the Ld AR that the assessee is regularly trying to get the certificate in form 26A from the NBFC but could not succeed till date, thus…

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

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2150 OF 2012 M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2562/2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.600/2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1522-23/2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.599/2013 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. A Bench of two judges doubted the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Bench of two learned judges of this Court in CCE v. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (13) SCC 461 (hereinafter referred to as Digitally signed by DEEPAK G…