M/S. D.J. MALPANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

penalty under Section 173Q and interest under Section 11AA should not be levied. After hearing the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner held vide order dated 26.02.2002 that Dharmada cannot be considered as trading receipts and was not part of the assessable value. Therefore, no duty was payable on the component of Dharmada. 5. Thereafter, in an appeal filed by Revenue

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act, could not further be prosecuted for the same defaults. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the High Court was justified in its conclusions in dismissing the writ petitions. The decision in Kullu Valley’s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Penalty proceeding was also separately initiated. The Canara Bank aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.02.2013 filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax   (Appeals).   Before   the   Commissioner,   the   bank   relied   on Notification   dated   22.10.1970   issued   under   Section   194A(3) (iii)(f) of the IT Act, 1961. The   Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 02.12.2013 allowed

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

penalties and sanction extending to ban imposed on the medical practitioner), pharmaceutical companies cannot be granted the tax benefit for providing such freebies, and thereby (actively and with full knowledge) enabling the commission of the act which attracts such opprobrium. 23. The illogicality and completely misconceived nature of such an interpretation was dealt with in a similar interpretation