Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 499 and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, A.P., Hyderabad

4 SCC 435Reported decision1981#20751 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2022.

Judgments citing Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 499 and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, A.P., Hyderabad

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

…8 Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that it is held by this Court in the cases of CIT v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 499 and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, A.P., Hyderabad, (1981) 4 SCC 435 = (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC) that where an expression has not been defined, 13 the Court shall resort to the ordinary natural meaning as understood in common parlance. It is submitted that in common parlance, Court rulings and legislations, “firm” has been always understood as partnership firm. Therefore, in the present case, “consulting engi…

Commissioner of Gst and Central Excise vs. M/S Citibank N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

…ified. Finally, the Commissioner proceeded to confirm the demand for service tax, interest under Section 75, penalty under Section 78 and also the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(2). THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL 3 (2011) 4 SCC 435 36 35. The Tribunal, in Order dated 16.11.2018, passed a reasoned Order, which is impugned in Civil Appeal No. 8228 of 2019. 36. The said Order came to be followed by the Tribunal by passing the Order dated 20.11.2019, which is impugned in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2021. 37. In Order dated 16.11.2018, the Tribunal dealt with the SCNs,…

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] Hyderabad vs. M/S Ghmc, Hyderabad

ITTA/534/2015HC Telangana23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

C0Mmnr. of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co.Ltd

C.A. No.-002741-002741 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

For Respondent: Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd

Section 256Section 44

…ted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, that there exists a distinction between a ’provision’ and ’reserve’. It was so held in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Hyderabad etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad etc. [(1981) 4 SCC 435] in the following terms : "9. The distinction between the two concepts of reserve and provision is fairly well known in commercial accountancy and the same has been explained by this Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Workmen thus: The distinction between a provision and a reserve is in commercial accountancy fairly well known…