COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA vs. M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

House, Kandla (in short ’Commissioner’) confirmed the demand of duty and also directed confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. It is to be noted that respondent no.1, inter alia, contended that there was no certainty that the rate of duty will be enhanced and that they acted under a bona fide belief that the funds would be available

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SRIEHMAL NAWALAKHA

Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High

houses of the building named as "Deep Shikha" was made by the assessee to his wife in terms of the Gift-tax Act, 1958?" By the impugned judgment the High Court answered the question of law in favour of the respondent. It came to the conclusion that the definition of the word ’gift’ under the Gift Tax Act was wider

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

House, Kandla) Cross Examination of Shri Gobind Singh, Manager (Lab), IOCL, Central Laboratory, Mumbai in the matter of SCN F. No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-11(INT-2/2018 dated 24.04.2019 issued to M/s. Gastrade International & Others by Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate. Q: What is your name·? A: Dr. Gobind Singh. Q: Where have you been working and for how long? A: I have

MOHAN WAHI vs. COMMNR. INCOME TAX, VARANASI

The appeal stands allowed in

house property and a sale certificate was also issued to respondent No.3. The order of the Tax Recovery Officer confirming the sale was put in issue before CIT, Varanasi by the firm UPCC and its partners P and S, by http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10 filing a petition under section 264 of the Act. Vide

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

AKBAR BADRUDDIN JIWANI vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

112 of the said Act was directed to be paid forthwith. Against this order, the appellant filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1398 of 1989 which was dismissed at the admission stage on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact which were difficult to be decided in a writ jurisdiction. However, the appellant was permitted

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

112 (a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of Leela Ventures the show-cause notice dated 21st January, 1998/18th February 1998 valued the drawings and designs at Rs. 2,66,87,100/- being the transaction value and on that value the amount demanded under Section 28(1) of the said

M/S GMR ENERGY LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,BANGALORE

112(a) and/94 Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed.” 5. The reply to the show cause notice sent by the assessee disputed all the allegations made and stated in particular as follows:- “H. VALUE DECLARED FOR INSURANCE IS THE Page 7 JUDGMENT 7 BEST REFERENCE TO DETERMINE THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE GOODS IMPORTED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

112(AP) and not agreed with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. VB Palekar, (1974 94 ITR 616 (Bom). It is to be noted that in all the aforesaid three cases which were relied upon by the Revenue in the case of Piara Singh (supra) were found to be involved in legitimate

KOTHARI FILAMENTS vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs

112(a) and (b) thereof. Cause was further directed to be shown as to why the appellants attempted evasion of custom duty amounting to Rs.38,16,729.40 resulting from mis-declaration of the imported goods 2 should not be directed to be paid and as to why the said amount shall not be recovered along with interest. 5. Appellants

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

112(2) with effect from 1-10-1975, has been repeatedly stressed upon by this Court so as to ensure accountability and responsibility in the decision-making process. The necessity of recording of reasons also acts as a cushion in the event of a legal challenge being made to the satisfaction reached. Reasons enable a proper judicial assessment

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and “applets” incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content that

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant part

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside

Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, there is no mention of the test of integral or inextricable process and found that the wrong test had been applied to arrive at the wrong result. 5. The CESTAT in turn set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) observing: “An Article with distinct brand name and separate

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

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

section notes. It is only when (i) no clear pathway exists to determine classification under a chapter heading, i.e., absence of a definition or criterion, and (ii) there is ambiguity regarding the meaning and scope of a tariff item, that the possibility of invoking the common parlance test arises. 57. In Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd & Ors. v. Union

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

property right” in HEL? If not, the question of such a right getting “extinguished” will not arise. A legal right is an enforceable right. Enforceable by a legal process. The question is what is the nature of the “control” that a parent company has over its subsidiary. It is not suggested that a parent company never has control over