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

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

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

68. An assessee may be held liable to pay tax along with interest pursuant to an audit, scrutiny, or investigation. This liability can be discharged either through self-assessment or by way of assessment conducted by the Department. The Act contemplates the issuance of a show cause notice under Sections 73, 74, and 76 respectively, wherein the assessee

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

100 ITR 392 (AC)], in our opinion lay down the correct interpretation of the last ten words in Section 2 clause(15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility

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

Appeals are allowed

100/- being alleged unexplained investment in the property invoking the provisions of sec. 69 of the Act? (2) On the facts whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the part of the entries in the seized documents could be attributed to the applicant HUF when the applicant had denied the knowledge or ownership of the document?" The High Court

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

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

100/- for every departing domestic passenger and Rs. 600/- for every departing international passenger at the concerned airports for a period of 48 months. 3. The Commissioner of Service Tax, through various show cause notices demanded payment of tax on the development fee collected for various periods. These notices were adjudicated and confirmed; the CESTAT remanded the matter

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. 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

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

100, which provides that the provisions of Chapter XA shall apply “in addition to, or in lieu of, any other basis for determination of tax liability.” These provisions, it was urged, 35 demonstrate that GAAR operates as a supervening anti-abuse code whose efficacy cannot be diluted by interpretative carve-outs. 7.17. It was further submitted by the learned Additional

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

100 L Ed. 917, the Supreme Court of United States of America held that the processing of chicken in order to make them marketable, but without changing their substantial identity, did not turn chicken from agriculture commodities into manufactured commodities. The Indian courts have http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16 been influenced by the definition

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ALDEC CORPORATION

Appeals are dismissed, with

section 35L(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is \026 whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was right in holding that the fragmented activities of M/s Aldec Corporation, M/s Vitthaleshwara Painting Industries (VPI) and M/s Srinivasa Rolling and Engineering Works (SREW) taken individually or jointly resulted in "manufacture" of a separate, independent and distinct

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

100/- being the transaction value and on that value the amount demanded under Section 28(1) of the said Act was Rs. 26,68

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

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

100 gms. Per male member of the family, need not be seized. (iii) The authorised officer may, having regard to the status of the family and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. This should be reported

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

100% depreciation. However, after the amendment the depreciation could only be 75%. The assessee supported the returns with provisional revenue account, balance sheet as on 31.03.1991, details of gross fixed assets, computation chart and depreciation chart. No tax was payable on the said return by the assessee. No notice under Section 143(2) of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

100 instances17 under the Income Tax Act, wherein the event of amalgamation, the method of treatment of a particular subject matter is expressly indicated in the provisions of the Act. In some instances, amalgamation results in withdrawal of a special benefit (such as an area exemption under Section 80IA) - because it is entity or unit specific. In the case

M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS(APPEALS)

In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the

SECTION XIII ARTICLES OF STONE, OF PLASTER, OF CEMENT, OF ASBESTOS, OF MICA AND OF SIMILAR MATERIALS; CERAMIC PRODUCTS; GLASS AND GLASSWARE. CHAPTER 68; ARTICLES OF STONE, OF PLASTER, OF CEMENT, OF ASBESTOS.. OF MICA AND OF SIMILAR MATERIALS. 166 This Chapter does not cover: (a) ........................ (n) ------------------------------------------------------------ Heading Sub-heading No. Rate of duty Central No. and description

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Distribution / marketing [Impugned Order at pg. 13, Para (c) - 14 of Paperbook Vol I]. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. [‘AIPL’/’Respondent’] is a company registered as a 100% Export Oriented Unit [‘EOU’] under the Software Technology Parks of India [‘STP’], since the year 1995. As per the agreement between Amadeus Marketing

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

100 per cent. but, by the Finance Act, 1984, it was reduced to 50 per cent. of the referred income. Then, the requirement of approval by CBDT was substituted by Finance Act, 1988 to the approval by Chief Commissioner or Director General. However, by Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991, even that requirement was deleted. In fact, the Finance