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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

22 wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility: Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

68 (1) of the Finance Act provides that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66. Section 67 (1) of the Finance Act, provides that where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value then such value shall be the gross amount

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

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

10 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and Sections 22 to 24 of the Indian income Tax Act, 1961, where ‘owner’ is spoken in respect of the house properties, the legal owner is meant and not the equitable or beneficial owner. Salmond On Jurisprudence, 12th edn., discusses the different ingredients of ‘ownership’ from pages 246 to 264. ‘Ownership

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

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

10). Thereafter, it became part of Section 65(12), when it became part of the definition of the words “banking and other financial services” and it is finally, w.e.f. 01.05.2006, that Section 65(33a) made its debut. Section 65(33a) uses the word “includes any service provided under clauses (i) to (vii)”. I must not be oblivious

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

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

68, every “person” providing taxable service to any “person” 17 shall pay service tax. Section 69 provides that every “person” liable to pay the service tax….may make an application for registration. In Section 70 also, the words used are “every person liable to pay the service tax…” 8. If the submission on behalf of the respondent

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 Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee ; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year ; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found

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

10. The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vide his order http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7 dated 5th of November, 1998 confirmed the assessment as detailed in the show-cause notice and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- upon the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved, filed statutory appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the appeal

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.

68). For the above reasons, we are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter cannot be faulted with. 18. The second submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant by Mr S Ganesh, senior counsel relates to the definition of the expression “programme producer” in Section

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, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty. 30. While Section 28 provides for recovery of duties not levied or short levied, Section 28AA deals with interest on delayed payment of duty. On the other hand, Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to financial year in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

68,310/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellants sent their replies, inter-alia, submitting that what was imported were not goods and there could be no excise duty on services since the remittances were in Form A-2 and tax at source under the Income-Tax Act was paid in respect of the said contracts

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

22. There is a deliberate intention to permit ITC on plant or machinery under Section 17(5)(d) even if the plant or machinery is immovable, and Section 17(5)(d) cannot be detracted by Section 16(3). He submitted that Sections 16(3) and 17(5) must be read harmoniously. REPLY TO REJOINDER

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

10. The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it by sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 made Service Tax Rules, 1994 for the purpose of assessment and collection of service tax. Service tax was imposed on Consultancy Engineering Services w.e.f. 07.07.1997 by a Notification No.23 of 1997 dated 02.07.1997. Consulting

ITW SIGNODE INDIA LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part but

22 rolled strips), the goods cannot be consigned to 7308.90 which is not specific and is a residuary item. As long as the subject goods were not classifiable under T.I 68 when it existed, they cannot attract the corresponding sub-heading 7308.90. We also submit that Rule 9(2) cited in the show cause notice is not applicable since there

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

10 income   or   furnished   inaccurate   particulars   of   income   for   the concerned assessment year.  As a consequence of the decision of the   appellate   authority,   even   criminal   proceedings   initiated against   the   appellant/assessee   have   been   dropped/terminated and   the   appellant/assessee   stands   acquitted   of   the   charges under Section 276(C)(D)(1)(2) of the 1961 Act vide judgment and order dated 6.6.2011 passed

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

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

22. Before we proceed to answer the aforesaid contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to first refer to the decisions of various High Courts and the cleavage of opinion that have been expressed as regards the scope of “initiation of proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6 of the CGST Act. Page 10

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

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

68 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) and not Section 15(1)(c) was applicable. As regards Issue no.3, Commissioner held that charge of evasion of duty by mala fide intent, wilful mis-declaration, suppression of facts was clearly established. CEGAT held that there was no willful mis-declaration, no evasion or short levy