RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

253 dated 30.04.1979. It has been pointed out that Circular dated 23.12.1975 provided, inter alia, that in the case of a composite agreement which specified a consolidated amount as consideration for purposes which included matters outside the scope of Section 80-O, CBDT may not approve such an agreement for the purposes of Section

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

3).   “assessee”   means any   person   who   is   liable   for payment   of   duty   assessed   and   also includes   any   producer   or manufacturer of excisable goods or a   registered   person   of   a   private warehouse in  which  excisable  goods are stored;” 15. The   taxable   event   is   manufacture   and 15 production   of   excisable   articles   and   payment   of duty   is   relatable   to   date   of   removal

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

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

M/S. B.P.L. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

disallowing the benefit of the notification to the Defibrillator thereby concurring with the view of the Technical Member. 11) This is how the matter has come up to this court in the form of present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35 L(b) of the Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 7 of 19 Page