ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

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

Block No.2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CESTAT) in Appeal No. ST/136/2007, by which the learned CESTAT has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has set aside the demand towards the service tax by holding that the services rendered by the 1 Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?” 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice issued under

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

block of assets, the legislative intent becomes quite clear: the expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ does not constitute a separate category but is to be read alongwith the preceding categories. In support of this contention, learned 9 (1989) 2 SCC 458 10 (2009) 314 ITR 167 39 Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance

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

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

68. Neither section 6 of the CGST Act nor the SGST Act nor the Circular dated October 5, 2018, therefore, apply to the fact-situation presented by the two petitions before us as they do not operate and are not intended to operate in a situation where the "intelligence based enforcement action" has repercussion or involvement of taxpayers beyond

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 406 makes it abundantly clear that any such act by a carrier attracts the offence under Section 406. The Court in other words would have to allow the commission of an offence by the appellant in the process of finding that 71 the appellant is the owner of the goods. In other words, proceeding on the basis that there

M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid

68,177/- for the assessment year 2005-06 from the seized amount of Rs.1,81,91,982/- and to release the balance. On 29.11.2005 appellants Nos.1 and 3 moved an application under Section 132 (B) of the Act for release of the amount seized on 5.10.2005 i.e. within 30 days of the end of the month in which seizure took

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

Assessment Order passed by the A.O. recorded inter alia as follows: “6.1 In the case of the assessee group a survey operation was carried out on 20-03-2007 wherein incriminating documents were found which reflected the receipt of ‘on money’/suppressed sale proceeds on sale of flats/shops. During the survey one ‘Jaguar’ spiral diary was found which contained unrecorded

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

68,717/- Writ Petition No.2267 of 1992 was filed by the assessee in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.01.1993 allowed the writ petition quashing the levy of additional tax under Section 143(1-A). The Revenue aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge filed a Special Appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT vs. M/S. CERA BOARD AND DOORS, KANNUR, KERALA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

block boards. Searches conducted by the DGCEI at their premises revealed, according to the Revenue, that (i) the assessee had fraudulently undervalued the goods manufactured and cleared, (ii) that the actual value of clearances had crossed the Small Scale Industries exemption limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 and (iii) that the assessee had thus, evaded Central Excise duty

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

The appeals are allowed

assessable value of Rs.7,98,33,370/- should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act and penalty should not be imposed on each of them under Section 112 of the Act. Mr. Chand Seth, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company replied to the show cause notice stating therein that he being the Chairman

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

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

assesses manufacture, produce and export software to the overseas entities.”), Pg. 28 & Pg. 53 of Paperbook Vol I] Activities of Respondent company fall within the scope of Export of Service Rules, 2005, there is no liability of service tax – reliance placed on enunciation in the case of Paul Merchant. (Impugned Order at para 26 – pg. 54-56 of Paperbook

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

block   the   key file/License key/product key with neither issuance of any notice nor refund to the end­user. 4. Right to Updates During the license period of the software, the end­users are entitled to receive free software updates via Internet. The End­users will be required to regularly download these updates, which shall be governed by the agreement or as amended

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

block board. Since the Central Excise Tariff Act,   1985   is   enacted   on   the   basis   and pattern of the HSN, the same expression used in the Act must, as far as practicable, be construed to have the meaning which is expressly given to it in the HSN when there is no indication in the  Indian tariff of  a different intention