ADDL. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ANR. vs. M/S. BEST & CO

In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the High

Condonation of delay). B. R. L. Iyengar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant. A. K. Sen and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. On March 31, 1959 the respondents obtained a licence to import certain machinery from West Germany. The import licence contained particulars of the machinery

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

condonation of delay under Section 6 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015.  2.13 On   28.12.2018,   the   Department   passed   an Assessment Order u/S. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, stating that in view of the Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation, the notice issued under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

Delay condoned. The question which fell for consideration before the High Court was as to whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act is clarificatory and/or curative in nature. The said provision had come into force with effect from 01.06.2002. It reads as under: “Provided that the tax chargeable under this section shall be increased

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In this batch of civil appeals, the question which arises for determination is – whether TDS provisions in Chapter XVII-B, which are in the nature of machinery provisions to enable collection and recovery of taxes, are independent of the charging provisions which determines the assessability of income chargeable under the head “Salaries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

penalties payable by or imposed on the assessees as a matter of course the revenue will be put to great loss because of the inordinate delay in the disposal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunals. It is needless to point out that the power of stay by the Tribunal is not likely to be exercised in a routine

M/S SARAL WIRE CRAFT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the right of Appeal bestowed on the assessee by the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short ‘the Act’) has virtually Page 2 JUDGMENT been rendered nugatory since, successively, its Appeal has been declined consideration on merits, having instead held as time-barred. Succinctly stated, the Appellant had sought

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA vs. M/S. B. ARUN KUMAR & COMPANY

Bench: Cegat. The Revenue Also Moved Cross Appeal/Cross Objection Before The Tribunal. Pursuant To The Commissioner'S Order, The Assessee Deposited Rs.45,59,733/- In Cash. For The Balance Amount, Bank Guarantee Was Furnished. On 30Th April, 1990, The Tribunal Passed Order No.154-Cal/1990-154 Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal. By The Said Order, Revenue Was Directed To Refund The Redemption Fine & Penalty Within Thirty Days & In Default The Department Was Liable To Pay Interest At The Rate Of 12%. We Quote Hereinbelow The Operative Part Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal, Which Reads As Under: 1

Delay condoned. Leave granted. By Commissioner's Order dated 30th October, 1986, redemption fine of Rs.85 lakhs and penalty of Rs.15

M/S TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations

Bench: The Assessing Officer. What The High Court Has Done Is To Require The Assessing Officer To Pass A -2-

Delay condoned. Leave granted. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court has held that the Assessing Officer had disposed the proceedings stating the penalty

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-I vs. M/S. GUJARAT CARBON & INDUSTRIES LTD

Delay condoned. Appeal Admitted. 2. In these appeals common points are involved and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Challenge in each case is to the judgment of various Benches of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘CESTAT’). The respondents in each case had engaged the services of transport operators. They were in other

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from a final judgment and common order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 in W.P. (C) Nos. 6764, 6765 and 6766 of 2020 and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of clarity and systematic analysis, this judgment is divided

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Delay condoned. Leave granted. 1.1 These Civil Appeals have been filed by the Revenue, i.e. the Service Tax Department, being aggrieved by various orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”, for the sake of convenience). 2. The orders passed by CESTAT in all these appeals have been in favour of the respondents-assessees. The CESTAT

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition arising out of Diary No.32623 of 2024. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The issue involved in this batch of appeals is, whether, the imported goods is to be treated as Base Oil as claimed by the appellants or High Speed Diesel (HSD) as Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Delay condoned. 1 Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.08.05 15:23:05 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 3. This appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944   (for   short,   ‘the   Act   1944’),   as   made   applicable   to   the service tax by Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, (2011 SCC OnLine Del); CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., (2015) 370 ITR 288; CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7678; CIT v. Chanakaya

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

Delay Condoned. Leave granted. 2. This appeal when alongwith several appeals were heard on 16.11.2016, this Court noticed that in batch of cases, four questions have arisen.   The present batch of cases of which Civil   Appeal   No.   2165   is   a   leading   case   relates   only   to Question No.2, which is to the following effect:­ “Whether   sub­section   (2)   and   sub­section

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD

Delay condoned. 2) These appeals raise an issue of eligibility of concession/exemption from excise duty that is provided under Notification nos. 8/1999, 8/2000, 8/2001, 8/2002 and 8/2003 to the Small Scale Industrial Units (for short, 'SSI Units'). It is not in dispute that the respondents – assessees in these appeals fulfill eligibility conditions for availing the benefit of SSI exemption under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL

Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition(C) No.44 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the order of assessment passed by the Assistant CIT, Circle-I, Siliguri under

COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA vs. M/S.PRAXAIR INDIA PVT.LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The Issue Of Show Cause Notice Under The Provisions Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (‘The Act’ For Short). 1

Delay condoned. 2. Learned counsel for the sole respondent appears and takes notice. Hence notice waived. 3. Appeal admitted. 4. The issue raised in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. Therefore, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 5. The issue in this appeal