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

7. Apart therefrom, the provisions of Section 143(1) (a)(i) indicate that the intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) shall be without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2). The legislature, therefore, intended 6 (2003) 260 ITR 84 77 (1996) 222 ITR 140 Guj. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169

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

7) SCR 664 38 crore (from FY-2007-08 to 2020-21), which given its financial condition will jeopardise its existence and functioning. 59. Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel argued on behalf of Bhatinda Improvement Trust and adopted the submissions of Mr. Soparkar. She urged, in addition, that it is obligatory on part of the assessee (a statutory corporation

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

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

7 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 8 JUDGMENT Section 113, viz., whether it is clarificatory and curative in nature and, therefore, can be applied retrospectively or it is to take effect from the date i.e. 01.06.2002 when it was inserted by the Finance Act, 2002, attracted the attention of this Court

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

68. In the case at hand, the show cause notice for the initiation of prosecution for the AY 2011-12 was the earliest in time and hence what falls for our determination is whether the offence under Section 276CC for the AY 2013-14 could be said to have been committed before the show cause notice for initiation

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

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

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

7), the Board may authorise a Commissioner of Customs or a Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Customs to appoint officers of customs below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Customs.” Section 5: “(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Board may impose, an officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge custom the duties conferred

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

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

7. This provision being a definition clause merely defines various activities which could be termed as a business. Section 2(13) of the Act gives a broad definition to ‘business’. Section 28 of the Act comes under the heading ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’. Various types of income enumerated thereunder are made chargeable to income

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

Bench: Us.

7. ........Moreover, the material allegation of Marico that its job workers used green coloured labels for marketing hair oil exclusively was absent in the show-cause notice. Marico had never marketed any product under the orange label and all along marketed its entire range of products using the green label only. We find that in the absence of any label

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

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

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

7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence may qualify as “capital goods” within the meaning of Rule 2(a)(A) subject to fulfilling other conditions mentioned therein. 11.3.3 As to what is immovable property has been explained under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which specifies that “immovable property does not include standing

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

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

68 (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 any taxable service notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section of the Settings menu of your device. 2. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Samsung reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Samsung or its suppliers own the title, copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Samsung Software. The Samsung Software

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

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

7 the Department had relied upon Section 145(3) of the 1961 Act to impose the  addition.    The  appellant/assessee has  also placed reliance on the Hindi version of the assessment order to buttress this submission; Third, that the  assessment was made under Section 144 as the same refers to Section 145(3).  Under Section

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

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