COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. BUREAU VERITAS

depreciation method is adopted, the computation as done by the Commissioner was not correct one. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the duty and penalty

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

penalty proceedings. 8.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal, one of which related to depreciation

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

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

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

depreciation from 100% to 75% did not amount to reduction in loss and additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was only to prevent evasion of tax. He submits that when additional tax had clear and specific imprint of penalty

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

penalty and prosecution, was affirmed and the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the appellant herein, was dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are that the appellant-assessee, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (formerly, “M/s ING Vysya Bank Limited”) is a Public Limited Company carrying on the business of banking and is assessed

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the total income of the assessee has been assessed at a minus figure/loss? http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the judgments in Prithipal Singh’s case

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

penalty should be allowed. In the alternative, they may be remitted to CEGAT for fresh consideration on merits for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. The submission on behalf of the Company and Chairman-cum- Managing Director and Director was that the decision of this Court in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. does not lay down correct

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TAMIL NADU vs. M/S. SOUTHERN STRUCTURALS LTD

penalties. 11. Member (Judicial), however, disagreed with the Member (Technical) on the point as to whether interest on advances should be included in the assessable value. He held that in order to include the interest element, burden is on the Department to prove that advances received had a direct nexus with the price inasmuch as the price had been depressed

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing of in-accurate particulars of income assessed. The Assessing Officer is directed to calculate the tax and interest on this income and issue Demand Notice and Challan to the assessee firm. 6 17. Similar conditions i.e. non fulfillment of the prerequisite conditions for deduction u/s 80IA/IB and excessive declared

COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD

The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. The Respondents filed an Appeal before the CEGAT which, as stated above, has been allowed on the basis of Judgments referred to earlier. Apart from the Judgments relied upon by the Tribunal, some other Judgments of the Tribunal, taking a similar view, have also been

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD

penalty should not be imposed. The Commissioner in his order upon recording the submissions of the respondents, herein observed that out of 97 volumes of imported materials, 23 volumes contained pictorial drawings and designs, while 46 volumes contained textual materials with a few drawings and designs. The Commissioner of Customs in his elaborate and considered order dated 31.10.1997, while referring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

penalty as per the scheme. Therefore, reassessment of this amount would lead to double taxation, which is contrary to the scheme of the Act itself. Analysis and conclusions 18. Section 147 of the Act authorizes the re-opening of any assessment of a previous year3. Section 148, which contains the conditions for re-opening 2 2007 (7) SCR765

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,PUNE vs. HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDS. LTD

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed

penalty could be levied. 5. The Member (Judicial) adverted to the order passed by the Commissioner wherein the statement of the Manager Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 (Sales) had been adumbrated in detail, referred to the other documents that had been put-forth by the revenue before the adjudicating authority and in course of discussion adverted to the principle stated

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

penalty or any other sum.   Amalgamated   Company   and   Transferee Company shall have the right to claim refunds, tax credits, set­offs and/or adjustments relating to the income   or   transactions   entered   into   by   them   by virtue   of   this   Scheme   with   effect   from   Appointed Date. The taxes or duties paid by, for, or on behalf of,   Amalgamating   Company   and   Transferor Company   (pertaining

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

penalty which is due. However, the authority cannot enforce a claim for recovery or levy of interest on the tax due during the period of moratorium.  We are of the opinion that the above  ratio  squarely applies to the interplay between the IBC and the Customs Act in this context.  45 From the above discussion, we hold that the respondent

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

penalty clause” was provided for in that, out of the amount received by the assessee an amount of INR 3 crore was to be deposited with the SWC group for two years under a public deposit scheme, it being made clear that in case there is any breach of the terms of the MoU resulting in loss, the amount

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

penalty, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, however in case of interest, the same being mandatory in nature and automatic there is no requirement of following principles of natural justice and/or even if in the assessment order there is no specific order to levy the interest but the interest charged is indicated in the ITNS

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

depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues. 31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section