PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 68 of the said Act. Section 68 of the I.T. Act (prior to the Finance Act, 2012) read as follows

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION) vs. COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX NEW DELHI

Bench: The Tribunal Arose From An Order Dated 1 August 2013 Of The Commissioner (Adjudication) Which Dealt With Five Show Cause Notices Dated 20 October 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 April 2011, 23 March 2012 & 23 April 2013. The First Of The Five Show Cause Notices Invoked The Extended Period Of Limitation.

section 65(68) read with section 65(105)(k). As regards the demand of service tax on programme producer services

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD

Section 68, Section 15(1)(b) would cease to operate. Section 49, provides that in the case of imported goods

M/S BISCO LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 68 would not be applicable since Section 68 operates in a different context. On the contrary, Section 72 would

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

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

Section 68 and such person who is liable to pay service tax under Section 68 is also liable to get himself

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

Section 68 of the Act? When and in what circumstances Section 68 of the Act would come into play? That

M/S KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,THIRUVANTHAPURAM

The appeal is dismissed with costs

Section 68 of the Act puts the burden of payment of tax on the service provider. Sections 68(2), 69(1), 71 and relevant

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 68 of the 1961 Act and added the same in declared income of the assessee (for short, ‘second addition

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

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

Section 68 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) and not Section 15(1)(c) was applicable. As regards

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

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

section 68 (inspection of goods in movement), section 69 (power to arrest), section 71 (access to business premises) and section

INDUSTRIAL DEV.BANK OF INDIA THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26th

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 68 of the Customs Act, which reads as follows: “68. Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption.—Any warehoused

M/S. MUSTAN TAHERBHAI vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and

Section 68 of the Act. Learned counsel also argued that Section 68 of the Act makes it clear that when

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 83 of the GMB Act 68 Section 25(2) of the GMB Act 69 Section 32 r/w Sections 37-30 of the GMB Act 40 utilization

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti

M.J.EXPORTS LTD. vs. CUSTOMS,EX.&GOLD(CONTROL)APP.TRI

section 68 or for exportation under section 69. The suggestion that if an importer intends to export the imported goods

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

Section 68 cannot said to have been excluded for regular assessments." [ Emphasis supplied ] Sections 132 to 132B of the Act embody

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

68,82,801/- as Duty Draw Back (DDB) and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 1,57,68

VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, by producing the parties in whose name the amounts in question had been credited by the assessee