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

30 Provided that such return shall not be processed before the issuance of an order under sub-section (3).” The relevant explanatory Note to Finance Act, 2016 was: “56. Processing under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act be mandated before assessment: 56.1 Under the existing provision of sub-section (1D) of Section

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside.” 4) The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

30 (1970) 3 SCC 323 31 1997 (Supp 3) SCR 466; (1997) 7 SCC 17 (hereafter "GIDC case"). 32 (2009) 16 SCC 208 33 2017 SCCOnline Bom 10021 (para 10-12) 34 (1965) 1 SCR 909 (hereafter “Navnit Lal Jhaveri”) 31 executive’s understanding – in the form of circulars in the context of taxing statutes – were valuable guides to interpretation

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

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

30. We are of the view that the appellants are not justified in seeking to derive support from the judgments rendered by this Court under the Income Tax Act. The impact of taxing of income under the Income Tax Act would not be apposite for considering the question which arises in these cases which is whether interest can be levied

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

30 of 59 was provided in clause (b). Section 276-CC refers to “due time” in relation to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 139 and not to sub-section (4). Had the legislature intended to cover sub-section (4) also, use of the expression “Section 139” alone would have sufficed. It cannot

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

68. Special duties of customs. – (1) In the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, or in that Schedule, as amended from time to time, there shall be levied and collected as a special duty of customs, an amount equal to two per cent of the value of the goods as determined in accordance

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

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

30 b. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 48 of 161 c. Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1 d. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 71 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 52. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Datar

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

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

30%. The Bill also speaks about the objective behind not allowing any deduction to the assessee in computing deemed income under Section 68, 69 and 69A to 69D of the Act. That was the reason why a decision was made to impose greater tax burden. The rate of tax was increased by a subsequent amendment to 60%. 16.Sub-section

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

Bench: Us.

Section Note 2 to Section VI, no other classification is permissible. By consideration of the materials placed on record and also applying the 'Common Parlance Test', coconut oil packed in small sachets/containers 67 understood in the market by dealers/consumers as 'Hair Oil' is classifiable under Chapter 33, tariff item 33 05. In the case of MAIPL, 'Coconut

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

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

2) it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable: (3) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment

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

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

30 of 57 ii. Secondly, (if the first condition is satisfied), computing the quantum of excise duty payable under the valuation provisions, such as Section 4 (or Section 4A, although Section 4A is not relevant to this present matter before us). 44. Thus, it is necessary to first examine whether the resultant product that emerges

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

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

2) of section 68, any other taxable service on being notified by the Central Government may also be liable to service tax in the same manner as may be prescribed and the rate specified in section 66 subject to the provisions of Chapter V may apply to such person as if he is the person liable

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

30 - ENTRY INTO FORCE 1. Each of the Contracting States shall notify the other of the completion of the procedures required by its law for the bringing into force of this Agreement. This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of the later of these notifications and shall thereupon have effect: (a) in India: in respect of income arising

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

68,702 (-)6,16,78,845 (-)84,90,900 4,58,78,816 212 Mahagun Mosaic (-)5,21,92,597 11,93,15,012 6,71,22,415 Total difference 3,82,17,922 2,41,030,598 2,09,41,932 35,58,412 12,60,57,575 42,98,06,439 7.6 The reply filed by the assessee

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

30, 2009 declaring NIL income. In the return filed for the Assessment Year 2009-10, year ending with March 31, 2009, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs.4,26,37,081/- as deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Return filed by the assessee was 6 taken up for scrutiny under CASS (Computer Assisted Selection of Cases for Scrutiny