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

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

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

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

13. Appellant submitted reply dated 02.04.1994. In its reply, appellant stated that there was heavy rain in the month of August 1989 and the soil outside the notified warehouse had 8 become very sluggish. As a result, the trailers carrying the consignment could not enter the notified warehouse. The goods were downloaded in the open outside the notified warehouse

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.

13. The first issue which falls for determination bears upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 65(68) read with Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act 1994. The definitions of “manpower recruitment or supply agency” and “taxable service” under section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 are as follows: 65. Definitions – In this Chapter

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 13

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

8. In the Budget for the year 1998-99, Basic Customs Duty and Special Customs Duty was levied on SKO @ 30% and 2% ad valorem respectively. Thereafter, the Customs Authority (the \021appellant\022 hereinafter) withheld the clearance of SKO from the said tank on the contention that the respondent was required to pay Basic and Special Customs Duty

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

8. We have gone through both the judgments afore- referred to very carefully and minutely and have heard learned counsel on the conflicting decisions. There are wide ranging discussions in the interpretative process relating to the word ‘due’ occurring in the earlier part of the provision and the words ‘due and payable’ in the later part, and whether they

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

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

8 14. I have referred to these provisions as the impugned order covers periods embraced by Section 66 and 66B. 15. The next provision to bear in mind Section 67. Section 67 deals with valuation of taxable service for charging. It reads as follows: ”67. Valuation of taxable services for charging Service Tax. - (1) Subject

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions. For the assessment year under consideration assessee claimed deduction towards expenses aggregating to Rs.2,12,05,459/- which included interest on borrowings of Rs.1,56,76,000/-. During the assessment year under consideration assessee had installed new machinery. The A.O. vide assessment order dated

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

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

Appeal is allowed and the

13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the ratio of this case, blending of ore in the course of loading through the mechanical ore handling plant amounted to processing. In section 8(3)(b), the legislature in its wisdom had incorporated terms \021manufacture\022 and \021processing\022. Therefore, when the Chowgule

M/S KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,THIRUVANTHAPURAM

The appeal is dismissed with costs

68 or rules made thereunder, who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the period prescribed, shall pay simple interest at such rate not below ten per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

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

68 (1) of the Finance Act provides that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66. Section 67 (1) of the Finance Act, provides that where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value then such value shall be the gross amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

8. The effect of the stand of the Department is as follows: 13 In Titan’s case, the assessee files its returns for assessment year 2001-02. The total income declared in the return was `23,48,68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section

RAJASTHAN R.S.S. & GINNING MILLS FED.LTD vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

The appeal is dismissed

68,39,504/-, carried forward, so that the same could be set off against the profits of the appellant society under the provisions of Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessing officer negatived the appellant’s claim for the reason that the said societies were not in existence after their

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

8 9. Per contra, the respondent urged that the assumption of the appellant/assessee that the assessment order had rejected the books   of   accounts   under   Section   145(3)   of   the   1961   Act   is preposterous.   In that, the assessment in question came to be made under Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act.   Thus, the Officer was   justified   in   relying