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

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

68. Neither section 6 of the CGST Act nor the SGST Act nor the Circular dated October 5, 2018, therefore, apply to the fact-situation presented by the two petitions before us as they do not operate and are not intended to operate in a situation where the "intelligence based enforcement action" has repercussion or involvement of taxpayers beyond

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(2

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

24 assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act he can proceed under s. 143(1) of the Act. No other contention is raised.” 8.1.1 The relevant provision, namely Section 143 as it then stood was quoted in paragraph 6 as under: “6. It would be better to have a look at the relevant section which is reproduced

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

24 Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 21. 25Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula v. Motibhai Nagjibhai, 1966 (1) SCR 367. 26Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. 41 57. The scope of a proviso was dealt with in great detail in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman.27 This court observed

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

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to financial year in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

vi) Private trusts ................................................................................................................................... 135 IV. Summation of conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 141 A. General test under Section 2(15) ............................................................................................................ 141 B. Authorities, corporations, or bodies established by statute .................................................................... 142 C. Statutory regulators ................................................................................................................................ 143 D. Trade promotion bodies .......................................................................................................................... 144 E. Non-statutory bodies ............................................................................................................................... 144 F. Sports associations.................................................................................................................................. 145 G. Private Trusts .......................................................................................................................................... 145 H. Application of interpretation................................................................................................................... 146 4 1. Leave granted

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

24 of 59 (4) Anyperson who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. xxx xxx xxx 8) (a) Where the return under

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

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

vi. DRI officers as proper officers under section 2(34) ................................ 96 vii. Section 4 of the Act, 1962 ...................................................................... 98 viii. Section 6 of the Act, 1962 .................................................................... 106 ix. Observations on the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Act, 1962 ..................................................................................................... 114 x. Bombay High Court decision in Sunil Gupta (supra) ........................... 123 xi. Amendments made

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

24 Substituted by Act 38 of 1994, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 10-5-1995). 25 Inserted by Act 27 of 2012, sec. 2(ii) (w.e.f. 21-6-2012). 44 (m) "infringing copy" means-- (i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematograph film; (ii) in relation

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

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

2) of section 69, shall furnish to the Superintendent of Central Excise, a 16 return in such form and in such manner and at such frequency as may be prescribed.” 6.1 Definition of “consulting engineer” under Section 65(31), post amendment 2005, reads as under: “Section 65(31) “consulting engineer” means any professionally qualified engineer

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

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

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

24 of 57 maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed, shall, in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be the normal price thereof; (iii) where the assessee so arranges that the goods are generally not sold by him in the course of wholesale trade except to or through a related person, the normal price

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

68 of the Act was reversed and that addition was deleted. Therefore, we are not concerned with that aspect of the mater which has attained finality. 7) Insofar as disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing

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

vi); (via) (viaa) (viab); 47 (vii); 72A; 72AB, etc. 20 the transferee was in existence, vis-à-vis the transfer to the transferee company); carry forward of loss, depreciation, all bear out that under the Act, (a) the business-including the rights, assets and liabilities of the transferor company do not cease, but continue as that of the transferor company

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

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

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

68. Payment of Service Tax. – (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay Service Tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of "such taxable services as may be notified" by the Central Government

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

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

2(29). 17.4 Section 5 declares that property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction is liable to confiscation by the Central Government. The statutory intent is thus to invalidate both the transaction and any derivative civil claims, while exposing the property itself to State action. 17.5 Chapter IV embodies the machinery provisions of the enactment

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

vi) appellant was also required to pay interest on the duty confirmed in terms of Section 28AB of the Customs Act from the date of enforcement of the said section to till the date of actual payment of duty confirmed on the 264 packages. The interest amount was directed to 14 be worked out and communicated