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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee ; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year ; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found

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

68, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty. 30. While Section 28 provides for recovery of duties not levied or short levied, Section 28AA deals with interest on delayed payment of duty. On the other hand, Section

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD

Section 68, the goods removed in smaller lots have to be treated as cleared for home consumption. 21. For the reasons

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.

68). For the above reasons, we are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter cannot be faulted with. 18. The second submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant by Mr S Ganesh, senior counsel relates to the definition of the expression “programme producer” in Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

section 68 of the Income Tax Act are present? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claim of gift is not genuine is reasonable and based on relevant material and not perverse? These appeals relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The dispute in all these

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

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

68 is also liable to get himself registered under Section 69 read with the Rules and such person that is the person liable to pay service tax must also assess the tax and file Return under Section 70, as prescribed in the Rules. 61. I have already explained the scope of Sections 67 to 70. The contention

M/S KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,THIRUVANTHAPURAM

The appeal is dismissed with costs

Section 68(1-A) did was to prescribe the procedure for collection with reference to services of goods transport operators and clearing agents which services had already been expressly included under the Finance Act, 2000 in the definition of taxable service.\024 20. Reliance placed by Mr. Iyer on Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut \026 II v. L.H. Sugar

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

21 of the Constitution of India to guarantee the right to residence and settlement. 36 1996. All the trade bodies60 as well Bureau of Indian Standards are members of its governing council. 54. It was submitted that the revenue had granted exemptions to the assessee society under Section 12A and Section 10(23C)(iv) while issuing various certificates

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

68,676/- and demand of Rs.96,98,801/-, inclusive of interest at Rs.55,53,882/- was raised after adjusting pre-paid tax of Rs.5,23,756/-. The Department then issued show- cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC on 14.6.1996. Later, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 3.10.1996. 7. A-3 also failed

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

21:43 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 order was passed on 30.11.2000.   This appeal involves limited challenge to certain addition made under the heads ­ “Trading Account” and “Credits” in the assessment order.   The Officer, inter alia, while relying on the Balance Sheet and the books of account,   took   note   of   the   credits   amounting   to   Rs.2,26,000/­ (Rupees

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

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

21. One of the principal contentions raised by the petitioner herein for the purpose of assailing the Impugned Order is that the issuance of summons amounts to “initiation of proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. a. Contrary Views of different High Courts on the issue 22. Before we proceed to answer

M/S. MUSTAN TAHERBHAI vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and

21 of the erstwhile Sea Customs Act, 1878 provided that when any article liable to duty forms part or ingredient of a good, then such good would be liable to full duty as if it was entirely composed of such article. In the absence of such a charging provision in the Act, ships manufactured by Hindustan Shipyard in India cannot

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT vs. M/S. CERA BOARD AND DOORS, KANNUR, KERALA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

21,568 under Section 11AC, (iv) imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 25 and (v) imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 each on Sh. B. Abdul  Salam,  Sh.  J.  M.  Ashraf and  Sh. Manoj  Kumar  Amin under Rule 26.  39 62. The   Adjudicating   Authority   held   that   there   was undervaluation on assessee’s part and that

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

21 JUDGMENT 28. Special customs duty is levied under Section 68 of the Finance Act No.2 of 1996, which

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

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

21 of 109 goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods

INDUSTRIAL DEV.BANK OF INDIA THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26th

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

21. Having considered the provisions of the Companies Act, and the general principles of law, we would now proceed to examine whether the Customs Act creates a first charge for payment of the customs dues, and if so, harmonise and resolve the conflict between the Companies Act and the Customs Act. 22. We would begin by quoting Section

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

21,627/- was accepted. The balance was rounded off to Rs. 5,24,200/-. Half of this was added to the assessment of P.R. Metrani (HUF) and other half were added in the assessment of Y.R. Metrani. The appellant being aggrieved filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by separate order disposed of the appeals relating to assessment

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

21. The marketability test requires that the goods as such should be in a position to be taken to the market and sold and from the above findings it follows that to take it to the market the turbo alternator has to be separated into its components — turbine and the other alternator — but then it would not remain turbo alternator