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

e). Thus, at every stage in sub-section (1) the return submitted by the assessee forms the foundation, with respect to which, if any of the inconsistencies referred to in various sub-clauses of clause (a) are found, appropriate adjustments are to be made. On the other hand, the exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section

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

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

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

13. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT vs. M/S. CERA BOARD AND DOORS, KANNUR, KERALA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

E N T V. Ramasubramanian,J. Introduction 1. All   the   appeals   on   hand   are   by   the   Commissioners   of Central   Excise,   Customs   &   Service   Tax   of   different Commissionerates, filed under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise   Act,   1944   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Act”), questioning the correctness of the orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the Division Bench judgment dated 13.11.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.837 of 1993 filed by the Revenue has been allowed upholding the demand of additional tax under Section

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

13 SCC 225 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 24 of 91 c. In response to the principles for examining the constitutional validity of taxation statutes, he submitted that the test of vice of discrimination in a taxing statute is less rigorous. He submitted that the Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate classifications given

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade

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

e) agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act; … 14 (1954) 25 ITR 265 15 (1999) 239 ITR 775 42 14.12. In the context of the Act, more particularly Section 32 thereof, there is no similar provision which specifically lays down that a right which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

E N T M. M. Sundresh, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, drawing a distinction between a claim for deduction of a loss incurred in an illegal business, as against a claim of a loss qua a legitimate business, though an illegality

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

E N T UJJAL BHUYAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a statutory appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly the ‘Customs Act’ hereinafter) against the final order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘CESTAT’ hereinafter) in Customs Appeal No.441

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

e) the amount or amounts of dividends paid or proposed; or (f) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which any of the provisions of Chapter III applies; if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (f) is debited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by,— (i) the amount withdrawn from

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same."" [See also Swedish Match AB and Another v. Securities & Exchange Board of India and Another

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

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

E N T Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No.686 of 2017. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are as under: (a) Out of opening share

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

E N T With C.A. No. 345 of 2006, C.A. No. 1340 of 2006, C.A. No. 3390 of 2006, C.A.

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

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

13 served on the convict to require him to indicate his sources of income as noted by the Madras High Court.  More so, the convict is not expected to offer explanation with regard to the properties held by his relatives and not by him.   15. As regards the purport of Section

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

13. Kingdom of Netherlands 14. Republic of Singapore 15. Kingdom of Sweden 16. India-Taipei Association in Taipei (Taiwan) 17. United States of America 18. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 41. Insofar as is material, each of these DTAAs is based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, and are therefore substantially similar

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

E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, \023the Act\024) against the judgment and final order dated 9th of August, 2001 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, ERB, Cal. in Appeal Nos. C/R-84 & 116/1999. 2. Respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as \021respondent\022) imported 5273.156 M.T. of Superior Kerosene Oil (hereinafter referred to as \021SKO