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

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

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section

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. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise.” It has been held that merely proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity

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

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.

23 August 2007 issued by the CBEC must be understood in terms of its context: and (iii) It would not be permissible to restrict the plain terms governing the definition in Section 65(68) by reference to the circular of the CBEC when the circular has been issued in a completely different context. 12. In the counter-affidavit filed

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

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

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

23. We may note here that submissions in brief were made by learned ASG dealing with the arguments of Shri Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate. His submission is that the expression “capital goods” is intended to include “plant and machinery”. He submitted that what emerges from steel, cement, etc., are immovable goods, which would be excluded from GST. Since

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

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 from duty vide (i) 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Notifications No. 30/97 Cus dated

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

23. The High Court of Allahabad in G.K. Trading v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine All 1907, examined the interplay between Sections 6 and 70 respectively of the CGST Act. The petitioner had received summons from the State GST authorities to explain two instances of availed input tax credit. Simultaneously, the petitioner was also summoned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

23,48,68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section

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

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

23. In Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), the assessee was the manufacture of the antibiotic penicillin. In its initial years, it could produce only about 5000 units of penicillin per milli-liter of the culture-medium. With a view to increase the yield of penicillin, assessee negotiated with M/S Meiji Seika 54 Kaisha Ltd. of Japan. The negotiations ended

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

68,811, in the total turnover while arriving at export profits under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act, as it stood at the material time. 6. According to A.O., the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.1,94,08,220 from which an amount of Rs.1,74,13,200 (90%) was deducted in terms of clause

INDUSTRIAL DEV.BANK OF INDIA THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26th

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10. In the present case, we are not required to examine the inter-play and principle of proportionality with reference to clauses (a) and (b) to Section 529A of the Companies Act, albeit we must give full effect to and enforce the non-obstante nature of Section 529A of the Companies Act, whereby, notwithstanding anything contained