ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

6. BACKUP COPY- After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

disallowed by the assessing officer which was affirmed by the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On appeal by the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which decision has been affirmed by the High Court. The third additional issue relates to what is called carbon credit

MAHARANA MILLS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD & ORS

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

133(1) of the Constitution of India. The relevant facts are as follows: The assessee is a Private Limited Company and carries on the business of manufacturing and selling textile at Porbun- dar in Saurashtra in the Gujarat State. Before 1948 Porbun- dar was a part of the Princely State of that name. No In- come-Tax was levied

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

133, since the total income is to be assessed or reassessed again consequent to search or requisition. However, when it comes to section 153A(10(b) it authorises the AO to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ consequent to search or requisition. (ix) It is submitted that once a search or requisition is initiated, all pending assessments or reassessments would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

CHANDRAKANT KRISHNARAO PRADHANAND ANOTHER vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAYAND OTHERS

disallowed under certain circumstances. Sections 36, 37 and 38 deal with the alteration of import and export duties or tariff valuations. When the proper duty has- been paid according to the checks and inspections, if any, the goods are allowed to be cleared. Section 39, as the marginal note, shows correctly, deals with payment of duties not levied, short-levied

NARENDRAKUMAR J. MODI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT II,AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with

Section 25-A(3)--Claims for partition and disruption of the Hindu Undivided Family disallowed by I.T.O.--Appeal under the Act filed against the orders of I.T.O. also dismissed--No reference under the Act challenging the Tribunal’s order dismissing the appeal was taken, but subsequently got a prelminary decree for parti- tion, passed by the civil court during

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. vs. NAINITAL BANK LTD

In the result, the order of the High Court is correct and

6,7,9) ACT: Income Tax-Deductible loss-Banking Company-Loss by dacoity Whether incidental to business --Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 10(1). HEADNOTE: Cash and ornaments worth Rs. 1,06,000 were robbed by dacoits from the Ramnagar branch of the Nainital Bank Ltd., a public limited company carrying on the business of banking

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTFA vs. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD

133 1990 SCALE (1)35 ACT: Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982: Rule 9(2)--Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal--Appeal--Documents to accompany Memorandum of Appeal--Appeal filed pursuant to general authority given by Collector and order passed by Collector (in office note-sheet) without referring to any specific officer--Whether appeal filed

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

133/- on 19.07.1988 and a supplementary refund claim for Rs. 5,44,688/- on 15.06.1989 towards excise duty paid on various taxes and 3 Page 4 JUDGMENT discounts such as turnover tax, surcharge, additional sales discounts, transitory insurance, excise discounts, additional discounts and turnover discounts. The said claim was later on revised

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE,JAIPUR vs. M/S. J.K. UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD

The appeals are allowed with

disallowed the CENVAT Credit taken by the assessee, but did not impose any penalty. The assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the finding that the explosives are inputs in terms of Rule 57AB and CENVAT Credit was allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

disallow the credit on aforestated items on the ground that they were used for extraction of limestone in the mines and not within the factory in which cement (final product) was manufactured by the assessee. The assessee replied to each of the above three show-cause notices by which it submitted that the substantive definition of "input" as per clause

M/S MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs against his own Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide its decision dated 17.07.2007. Perusal of the decision indicates following thought process