DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 132 of the Act, about the declaration by Garg Logistics P Ltd, under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS). 5. The AO, in the reasons to believe, compared the investments made by Pravin Chandra Aggarwal, i.e. the assessee company’s Chairman with form no.2 of the assessee company and the records of the Registrar of Companies and prepared a chart

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

reopen assessment or recover duties which have escaped assessment has been conferred on an officer other than the officer of the rank of the officer who initially took the decision to assess the goods. 14. Where the statute confers the same power to perform an act on different officers, as in this case, the two officers, especially when they belong

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

M/S NAGARMAL BAIJNATH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

reopen the assessment ’for the said assessment year whereupon Shivram Poddar approached the Calcutta High Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus commending the Income Tax Officer to forbear from giving effect to the said notice. The 652 High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, whereupon the matter was brought to this Court. The question arising for consideration was stated

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

68,02,046.00 have been deducted by the Assessing Authority, indicating that he agrees with the Assessee’s claim. The Assessing Authority does not seem to have taken account of two other items (Capital gains = Rs. 4,00,000.00 and Rule 6D disallowance = Rs. 31,963). We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the Assessing Authority

ITW SIGNODE INDIA LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part but

68 would not be applicable. The Assistant Collector by an order dated 11.7.1983 held: "Considering all aspects, the cold rolled strips known as box strappings continue to be cold rolled strips under Tariff item 26AA (iii). The painting and waxing on the product does not change the classification of the product. As the raw material, cold rolled strips has discharged

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II vs. M/S MODIPON LTD

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: Delving Into The Question Formulated One Significant Fact Common To The Appeals Involving The Assessee-Modipon Ltd. May Be Noted. From The Assessment Year 1984-1985 (From Which Assessment Year

reopen the issue. It is submitted that the decisions rendered by the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, on merits, would commend for acceptance. Accordingly, it is submitted that, in the absence of strong compelling reasons, on the ratio of the decision in C.K. Gangadharan and Anr. vs. C.I.T.6 the present appeals ought to not be entertained any further

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

Bench: The Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise ........................ 9 Before The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ............ 18 Rival Submissions .................................................................................... 24 Points For Determination ........................................................................... 31 The Principles In The Cited Decisions ......................................................... 33 Application Of The Principles & Twin Test ................................................ 55 Whether Re-Look At Classification Of The Product In Question Justified ........ 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76

Assessable Value Duty payable @ 12.36% Duty paid @ 6.18% Duty short paid 1,18,95,973 44,03,60,296 5,44,28,532 2,72,14,266 2,72,14,266 7 to mention in their written reply whether they wish to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated. If no cause is shown within the stipulated period

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

68 133. One of the arguments of the Revenue before us was that the Mauritius route was not available to HTIL for the reason indicated above. In this connection, it was urged that the legal owner of HEL (Indian company) was not HTIL. Under the transaction, HTIL alone was the seller of the shares. VIH wanted to enter into

S. RAJENDRAN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION)

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

assess whether they can be construed in a manner that permits harmonious construction.13 (II) Where it is evident that one enactment is intended to function as a special law governing a defined subject, while the other is a general law operating in a broader or overlapping domain, the established principle embodied in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant applies