VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5. As against this, Mr. Shelat, learned counsel (for the Revenue), has contended that it is open for the AO to follow the procedure under s. 143(1) and 143(2) simultaneously. His contention is that it is open to have parallel proceedings and is not compulsory to assess as per s. 143(3) of the Act though notice under

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Section was introduced. 3(i) The provision only applies where the amount of tax which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered exceeds Rs,1,00,000/-. There has been no discovery of the failure in this case from the point of view of evasion of tax. The assessee has submitted return voluntarily, paid advance

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

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

5 of the 2014 guidelines provides that the guidelines would not be applicable for the compounding of any prosecution initiated under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the same can only be withdrawn under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 57. Paragraph 6 of the guidelines provides two categories of offences which can be compounded - category

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section 143(1) and accepted it. Subsequently, the A.O. rectified the alleged mistake and charged interest under Section 234B of `1,10,67,561/-. The A.O. further charged interest under Section 234C of `40,18,170/-. This levy

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. G. DAYARAM & CO

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

5) of Section 1 of the ESI Act. 58. An argument raised by the Appellants-herein is the issue relating to the `doctrine of pari materia’. It is contended that since the ESI Act does not define the term 'shop', the said definition may be ascertained in light of the definitions under the relevant Shops and Commercial Establishments

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

5,00,000 voluntarily   paid   by   the   assessee,   (iii)   levied   interest   at   the appropriate   rate   for   the   belated   payment   of   the   duty   under Section   11AB   of   the   Act,   (iv)   imposed   a   penalty   of   Rs. 1,37,81,152 under Section 11AC read with Rule 25, (v) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Rule 173Q/ Rule

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

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

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

section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons to be officers of Customs, namely:- 1. Principal Appraisers, Appraisers, Examiners, Chief Inspectors, Additional Chief Inspectors, Inspectors, Preventive Officers, Women searches, Mnisterial officers and Class IV officer in the Customs Department at Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Cochin, Visakhapatnum and Kandla. 2. Reverificadors

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

68 was ordered and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) had no application. Finally, this Court held that the consequence of non-removal of the warehoused goods within the permitted period or the permitted extension by virtue of Section 72 is certain. The date on which it comes to an end is the date relevant for determining the rate

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

5 of this judgment is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Civil Appeal No. 4072/2014 is accordingly allowed. 31. In view of what we have held above, the supplementary question framed in paragraph 5.1 of this judgment has been rendered redundant. Therefore, consideration of the submissions made in this regard is not necessary

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68,700 shares held by its sole shareholder and holding company Genpact India Investment, Mauritius, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.11.22 15:06:13 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2 the appellant bought back

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

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

68, 69 and 69A to 69D of the Act, which deals with unexplained income, expenditure etc., it can never be said that the same would be brought under Section 37(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the objective behind both the provisions are overlapping with some connection. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 8 Section

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 31,71,692.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00 (100% of the tax). The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the order

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

5 of 26 at Rs.1,44,92,907/- as per the report of the Dist. Valuation Officer-II, Mumbai. Accordingly, the Long Term Capital Gain is worked out as under : Less: Cost of acquisition as on 1.4.81 as per the Dept. Valuer’s report as discussed is Rs. 1,44,92,907 Indexed cost = 1

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

Appeals are allowed

1, 1995. Even after this date the section is still available in the statute. Therefore, an inference can safely be drawn in the light of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 132 itself that no limited presumption can be attached to Section 132(4A). At the same time we must also point out that

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