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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

17. We may at this stage notice the manner in which the Club operates and conducts the horse- races. Race meetings are held in the Club- race courses at Madras and Ooty for which the bets are made inside the racecourse premises. Admission to the racecourse is by tickets (entrance fee) prescribed by the Club. Separate entrance fee is prescribed

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

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

D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, West Block No.2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CESTAT) in Appeal No. ST/136/2007, by which the learned CESTAT has allowed the said appeal

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

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

17 of 27 4.4 It is submitted that however as the respondent – assessee was engaged in the business of trading of silver and the said silver slabs were in possession of the assessee for the purpose of trading, absolute confiscation of the said silver slabs would result in loss of stock in trade and the value thereof would be available

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

17 or 18 shall execute a bond binding himself in a sum equal to thrice the amount of the duty assessed on such goods. 33. As per Section 60, as it stood at the relevant point of time, when the provisions of Section 59 have been complied with in respect of any goods, the proper officer may make

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.

D G M E N T Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1. These appeals arise from a judgment dated 29 May 2020 of the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal1 in a batch of service tax appeals. The appeals before the Tribunal arose from an order dated 1 August 2013 of the Commissioner (Adjudication) which dealt with five show

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and ending with the assessment year during which the entire net worth of such company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulated losses. 7 Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “net worth” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ga) of sub-section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D G M E N T INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted. 1. The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2018 passed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 244 of 2018. The Revenue has challenged the judgment of the High Court by way of the present Appeal

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

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

17 warehouse. As this provision is of some relevance to the present case, it is extracted below:  “72.  Goods   improperly   removed   from warehouse,   etc.—(1)   In   any   of   the   following cases, that is to say,—  (a)   where   any   warehoused   goods   are   removed from a warehouse in contravention of section 71;  (b) where any warehoused goods have not been removed

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

5 our view, this finding, rather is clear and categoric, that no purchase was affected by the assessee, and amount was shown in a bogus manner, shown to be standing to credit of alleged purchasers, who could not be shown, to be either existent, or to be the creditors of the assessee, much less for the consideration alleged

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA vs. M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common judgment passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Mumbai (in short the ’CEGAT’). By the impugned judgment the CEGAT set aside the imposition of duty, redemption fine, interest and penalty levied under the Customs

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

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

d) the securities held by a despository as registered owner under the provisions of the Depositories Act, 1996 or participant as an agent of a depository would not be benami transactions. 2. During the administration of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, it was found that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are inadequate to deal with benami transactions

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 INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

68,276/-. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT. 9. In the impugned judgment by the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the High Court

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

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

D. ANALYSIS 20. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the action of respondent no. 1, as complained of, amounts to an “initiation of proceedings” in respect of the “same subject matter” for the purposes of Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D. Relevant changes brought about to the IT Act, 1961 (Finance Act, 1983 and 1991) 20. It is pertinent to note that the judgment in Surat Art Silk was delivered on 19.11.1979. The expression “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit” in Section 2(15) of the IT Act, was omitted by the Finance