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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68 Section 25(2) of the GMB Act 69 Section 32 r/w Sections 37-30 of the GMB Act 40 utilization of funds is only for the purpose of development, management and safety of minor ports; all these entitles GMB to exemption

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 10 (23C) (vi) alludes to business and profits (‘being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of its objectives and separate books of account are maintained by it in respect of such business’). The interpretation of Section 10 (23C) therefore, is that the trust or educational institution must solely exist for the object

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

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

68 is also liable to get himself registered under Section 69 read with the Rules and such person that is the person liable to pay service tax must also assess the tax and file Return under Section 70, as prescribed in the Rules. 61. I have already explained the scope of Sections 67 to 70. The contention of the Respondent

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. But, in view of Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

exemption under Section 80P of the Act which was being allowed by the Income Tax Authorities. As per the assessee, in course of its operations, members deposit cash into their accounts with the society and they withdraw the same. It is claimed that earlier, none of Income Tax Authorities had pointed out that acceptance of deposits from its members

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

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

68 of the Act makes it clear that when the importer of any warehoused goods intends to clear them for home consumption, then a bill of entry for home consumption has be to be filed, and the import duty leviable on such goods has to be paid by the importer, as was held in D.C.M. & Anr. Vs. Union of India

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR vs. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES

Section 2(f), Item No. 68 of First Schedule--Notification No. 179/77, CE dated 18.6.1977--Exemption in relation to manufacture

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

exempt by way of deduction on fulfillment of certain conditions. This matter may be examined from another angle. As noticed earlier, Section 10(27) specifically excluded poultry income from being included in total income. The meaning of total income in Section 2(45) of the Income Tax Act is as follows: http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

Section 8­A of the Karnataka Sales Tax 56 Act, 1957, providing certain incentives to entrepreneurs starting new industries in the State pursuant to State’s policy   for   “rapid   industrialization”.     The   notification contains a package of reliefs and incentives including one concerning relief from payment of sales tax with which the case was concerned.   There was no dispute that   the   appellant

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

68 or for exportation under section 69. The suggestion that if an importer intends to export the imported goods, he should clear them for warehousing and then proceed in terms of section 69 cannot be accepted because that would mean that imported goods can be re-exported after being warehoused for some time even a day or a few hours

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

68 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-dumping duty (ADD) levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the period June 1998 to August 1998, which were exempt

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

exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act. 36.1. Assessing Officer had recorded that shares of the subsidiary company were acquired not for earning profit but for acquiring controlling assets. Where the Assessing Officer himself recorded the finding that investment in the subsidiary company was made for acquiring controlling interest, revenue was not justified in contending that assessee

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

68 to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). …” 34. Section 24(1) incidentally provided for a notice of assessment save as it was otherwise provided in Section 13(2). The tax under Section

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. THE HIMALAYAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PR.U.LTD

68 of the Tariff. It reads as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule of rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.89/79-Central Excises, dated the 1st March 1979, the Central Government hereby exempts

M/S. SNEH ENTERPRISES vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

exemption from duties, shall so far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under the said section shall apply as they apply in relation to the duties leviable under that Act. Sub-Section (6) of Section 3 of 1975 Act, therefore, provides for incorporation by reference the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the rules and regulations made

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,MUMBAI-I vs. M/S SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA

The appeal is disposed of

Exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. dated 13.06.1998 which reads as follows:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), the Central Government having regard to the maximum sales tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on the like goods on their sale

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This claim