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

22 that where the summary procedure under sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available for the Revenue, either suo motu or at the instance of the assessee to make a regular assessment under sub- section (2) of Section 143. The converse is not available; a regular assessment proceeding having been commenced under Section

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

22 Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 1. 39 the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the legislature”. The Court, while noting the nuances between ‘strict’ and ‘literal’ interpretation, held as follows

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

22(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (in short the ’Old Act’) which are in pari-materia of Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) of the Act. It follows that return was furnished in "the due time" and consequently Section 276CC is not attracted. 2. The provisions of Section 276CC

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

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

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

e) where any order of settlement has been made under sub-section (4) of section 245D, on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under Clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment. Explanation.- For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income, (a) the total

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

22. Whether there was wilful failure to furnish the return is a matter which is to be adjudicated factually by the court which deals with the prosecution case. Section 278-E is relevant for this purpose and the same reads as follows: “278-E. Presumption as to culpable mental state.— (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

22. Contention of the respondent(s)/Assessee(s): Contention of the respondents/assessees is that 100% pure 'Coconut Oil' cover all varieties of coconut (Copra oil) marked as 'edible oil' and manufactured under Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) licence the same cannot be classified "preparation for use on hair" to be classified as 'Hair Oil' under Chapter 33 Tariff Item

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

68 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-dumping duty (ADD) levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the period June 1998 to August 1998, which were exempt from duty vide (i) 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Notifications No. 30/97 Cus dated

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

E N T L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J KIRPAL, J. These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 15th November, 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which, while confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs held that drawings, designs etc. relating to machinery or industrial technology were goods which

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

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

22 of 161 25. Section 4 relates to appointment of officers of customs and Section 5 deals with the powers and duties of officers of customs. There is only one significant change carried out in Section 4 on 11.05.2002. Prior to that date, the appointing Authority was the Central Government and post 11.05.2002, the Board became

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

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

22 of 27 currency notes and to that it was found that confiscation of currency notes was a loss occasioned in pursuing his business i.e. a loss which sprung directly from carrying on of his business and was incidental to it. Due to this, the assessee in the said case held entitled to deduction under Section

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

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

22) of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 2(i) of the Competition Act, 2002, Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(f) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Section 2(14) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 and Section 2(21) of the Consumer Protection

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

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

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 preferred

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

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

E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. In all these appeals, orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 (hereafter “CESTAT”) are impugned by the service tax authorities (hereafter “the revenue”), who argue that user development fee levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance and development entities (i.e., the Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2) The appellant herein, after losing in all the fora below, has knocked the doors of this Court by means of the present appeal seeking the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Assessing Officer held that deduction in respect

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 2

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the final judgment and order dated   21.8.2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (for short, “the High Court”) in Income Tax Appeal   No.   69   of   2006,   whereby   the   appellant’s   appeal   was dismissed   and   the   order   of   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench

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

E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave to appeal granted. With consent of counsels, this appeal was heard finally. This appeal arises from an order1 of the Delhi High Court rejecting the appeal, by the present appellant (hereafter “the revenue”) and affirming the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which quashed the assessment order against