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

Appeals are allowed

10 of the Act, it has been held that the same is not limited to the passing of an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 only; the same presumption can be raised for framing the regular assessment as well. The Bench has recorded its dissent with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Pushkar

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5 – Established and incorporated for securing the establishment of industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and generally for promoting the rapid and orderly establishment and development of industries and for providing industrial infrastructual facilities and amenity in industrial areas in the State of Karnataka. • Section 6 – All the members of the Board are government officials; • Section

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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This Court not only referred to the dictionary meanings assigned to these terms, but also placed heavy reliance to the context in which the words were used. This Court observed that: “21. ... Each word, phrase or sentence that we get in a statutory provision, if not defined

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

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

5 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 6 JUDGMENT provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was 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

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 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

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 Act, and that the onus on the Assessee Company stood fully discharged. 3.7. The AO had issued summons to the representatives of the investor companies. Despite the summons having been served, nobody appeared on behalf of any of the investor companies. The Department only received submissions 5 through dak, which created a doubt about

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10   days   to   the   Corporate   Debtor   before approaching the NCLT. If the Corporate Debtor fails to repay dues to the operational creditor, or fails to show any existing dispute or arbitration, then the operational creditor can approach the NCLT. (ii) Upon   admission   of   an   application   by   the   NCLT,   the claims of the creditor will be frozen for 180 days, during

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.

5 “CBEC” CA 3532-36/2020 8 the provisions of the circular dated 23 August 2007 which specifies the requirement that the service provider and the person whose service is provided must be governed by an employer-employee relationship in order for the provisions of Section 65(68) to be attracted. 11. These submissions have been controverted

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

10% and not exceeding 36% per annum as may be fixed by the central government by notification in the official gazette. 31. Chapter IX of the Customs Act comprising of Sections 57 to 73A deal with warehousing. Section 57 provides for licensing of public warehouses where dutiable goods may be warehoused. As per Section

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

5. In view of the fact that SKO is a highly combustible material and cannot be taken out of storage tank to store elsewhere, the respondent made an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under Section 49 of the Act, requesting him to permit storage of goods, which had been cleared for home consumption, in the same warehouse/tank

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

5) Artificial hatching, (6) Research, (7) Technology, (8) Large-scale production, (9) Prevention of diseases, (10) Quality of chicks : (a) Protection against diseases - less mortality, (b) Chicks - better yield, larger number of eggs, size of eggs, (c) Less feed consumption. Learned counsel for the assessee also referred to various passages from several books, i.e., The Incubation Book

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

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

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

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

10. While determining the question whether a statute is a general or a special one, focus must be on the principal subject-matter coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the intendment of the Act….” 14 State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai, (1979) 3 SCC 347; Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements