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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the Assessing Officer on 28.02.1992. The revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came to be dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 31.03.1992. The Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the revision petition by giving following reasoning: “A plain reading

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

154 /2010 @ SLP(C) No. 22176/2009 TRANSFERRED CASE NO. 5/2005 & 6/2005 J U D G M E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition. Introduction An interesting question of law which arises for determination in these Civil Appeals filed by Non-banking Financial Companies (“NBFCs” for short) is: “Whether the Department is entitled to treat

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

154, section 155, sub-section (4) of section 245D, section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264, the amount of tax payable under this Act is reduced or increased, as the case may be, the amount of tax credit allowed under this section shall also

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

1) The scheme of 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

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

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

154 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, the amount on which additional income­tax is payable under clause (a) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the additional income­tax shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and,­ (i) in   a   case

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

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

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

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section

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

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

154 of the Act. The undisclosed income was revised under Section 250BC/158BC by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 09.09.2003 to Rs.10,90,000/- to give effect to the above order of the CIT (Appeals), and thereby removing the component of the surcharge. 5. As the Department wanted the surcharge to be levied, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

154 Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 10 of 161 1. Since the pivotal question of law involved in all the captioned petitions is the same, they were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 filed

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

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

1 explicitly states that the classification of a good should prioritise chapter headings, chapter notes, and section notes. It is only when (i) no clear pathway exists to determine classification under a chapter heading, i.e., absence of a definition or criterion, and (ii) there is ambiguity regarding the meaning and scope of a tariff item, that the possibility

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

Bench: The Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise ........................ 9 Before The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ............ 18 Rival Submissions .................................................................................... 24 Points For Determination ........................................................................... 31 The Principles In The Cited Decisions ......................................................... 33 Application Of The Principles & Twin Test ................................................ 55 Whether Re-Look At Classification Of The Product In Question Justified ........ 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76

1 : (1995) 77 ELT 485]. 8. As far as the first three items listed earlier are concerned, this Court has in CCE v. Pandit D.P. Sharma [(2003) 5 SCC 288 : (2003) 154 ELT 324] and CCE v. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra [(2003) 5 SCC 290 : (2003) 154 ELT 323] in connection with Banphool Oil and Himtaj Oil held that

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

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

154 of the Act, by which, the matter stood remitted back, the Appeal of the Revenue and the Appeal of the appellant, challenging the Rectification Order, came to be dismissed. 13. This, in turn, triggered the Appeal, i.e., M.A. 214 of 2002 before the High Court by the appellant under Section 260A of the Act. The High Court, inter

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. BAIDYNATH AYURWED BHAWAN LTD

Appeals are allowed

68 of the Act, 1944. 6. On March 1, 1978, the Central Government issued an Exemption Notification bearing No. 62/78-CE whereby exemption was extended to “…..all drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified.” Baidyanath claimed the benefit extended by the Central Government under the said Notification and stopped paying duty on the product DML while filing fresh classification

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. ISHAAN RESEARCH LAB. (P) LTD

Appeals are dismissed

68,074.78 as Basic Excise Duty and Rs.34,39,918.89 as Special 3 Excise Duty under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act on IRLP. He also directed the confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery used by M/s.IRLP with an option

HT MEDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed

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

1) For the purposes of this chapter, classification of taxable services shall be determined according to the terms of the sub- clauses (105) of section 65; (2) When for any reason, a taxable service is prima facie, classifiable under two or more sub-clauses of clause (105) of section 65, classification shall be effected as follows