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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10(46) of the Act, and charging and payment of fee, service charges, reimbursement of costs or consideration for transfer of rights for performing and undertaking regulatory or administrative duties for general public interest, when these are not guided and undertaken with profit motive or intent. Further, reliance was placed on The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

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

10 of 57 16. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that owing to the huge size of the boiler, it had to be cleared from the assessee’s factory in CKD condition to the site of the buyer. He submitted that the assessee had no contractual obligation to erect or install the goods supplied by it. As per the contract

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

10 (1984) 3 SCC 462 11 (1996) 11 SCC 480 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2) & ANR.) 42 iii) Proviso to Section 68

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 CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

10 (iv) State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, (2024) 6 SCC 461. Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 49 of 161 54. Mr. Arvind Datar too submitted that the scope of review is extremely limited and further contended that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 is a clear overreach and needs to be considered separately

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

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside.” 4) The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

10 paid by the assessee under Section 115JA, then the assessee becomes entitled to claim credit of such tax in the manner prescribed. Such a right gets crystallized no sooner the tax is paid by the assessee under Section 115JA, as per the return of income filed by that assessee for a previous year (say, year

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

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

Section 32, as discussed above, clearly envisages separate depreciation for a building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. The word “plant” is given inclusive meaning under Section 43(3) which nowhere includes buildings. The Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 68 of 91 Rules prescribing the rates of depreciation specifically provide grant of depreciation on buildings

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

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

10 processing charges amounting to Rs.1,54,68,811 in his total turnover. He contended that although the processing charges(receipts) amounting to Rs.1,54,68,811 constituted part of business profits as computed under Section 28 of the I.T. Act, since Section 80HHC (3

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

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

3 (36) of the General Clause Act. If we consider the nature of annexation of the tower to the earth, it is seen that the annexation is not for permanent annexation to the land or the building as the tower can be removed or relocated without causing damage to it. It is also to be noted that the attachment

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

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

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

10,42,71,437/- which was not paid by the respondent. According to the Revenue, it also failed to obtain Service Tax Registration from the department. 2 2.1 A show cause notice dated 26.05.2006 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur to the respondent under Section 73 read with Sections 65, 66 and 68

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

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

3), the value shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.” 16. Section 68 deals with the persons responsible for payment of service tax and it reads as follows: “68. Payment of Service Tax. – (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay Service Tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such