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

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. G. DAYARAM & CO

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

21 Fla. 374, 384, 58 Am.Rep. 667.” According to Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume LXXX, the term shop has been explained as follows: “SHOP As a noun. The word shop appears to be derived from the old high German 'schopf' or 'scopf' which meant a building without a front wall. It is a term of various significance, and has many definitions

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

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

5 per cent, of the value of the taxable service referred to in sub-clause (g) among others enumerated in section 65(48) and collected in such manner as prescribed. Section 68 provides that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such manner

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

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

68, 69 and 69A to 69D of the Act, which deals with unexplained income, expenditure etc., it can never be said that the same would be brought under Section 37(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the objective behind both the provisions are overlapping with some connection. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 8 Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)(2011) 6 [1985] 23 TTJ (Cal.) 7 (2012) 206 Taxaman 254 (Delhi) 18 “38. Even in that instant case, it is projected by the Revenue that the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) had purportedly found such a racket of floating bogus companies with sole purpose of lending entries. But, it is unfortunate that all this

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

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

21 34. Section 61 mentions the period for which the goods may remain warehoused. Sub-Section (1) says that any warehoused goods may be left in the warehouse in which they are deposited or in any warehouse to which they may be removed- (a) in the case of capital goods intended for use in any hundred percent export

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

68 and the same would not be applicable to the present case. 15. Section 15(1) provides for the rate of duty and tariff valuation applicable to any \023imported goods\024. The term \023imported goods\024 is defined in Section 2(25) of the Act to mean any goods brought into India from a place outside India

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

21 forum   or   under   any   other   law,   until   approval   of   the resolution plan or initiation of the liquidation process. (iii) The   NCLT   first   appoints   an   interim   insolvency professional.   The   interim   insolvency   professional   is   to hold office until a resolution professional is appointed. He   further   takes   control   of   the   Corporate   Debtor’s operations   and   collects   its   financial   information   from information utilities

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

68,586,950 8,916,304 Total tax payable 77,503,252 77,503,254 Less: Set-off of MAT credit Less: TDS Less: Advance Tax 54,015,189 5,231,557 19,316,900 4,198,191 19,316,900 Balance tax payable 1,060,394 53,988,163 Interest under 234B 11,067,561 15 Interest under 234C

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

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

5) of that section, or (b)  fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub­section (1) of section 142 or fails   to   comply   with   a   direction   issued   under sub­section (2A) of that section, or (c) having made a return, fails to comply with all the   terms   of   a   notice   issued   under   sub­ section

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5 – Established and incorporated for securing the establishment of industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and generally for promoting the rapid and orderly establishment and development of industries and for providing industrial infrastructual facilities and amenity in industrial areas in the State of Karnataka. • Section 6 – All the members of the Board are government officials; • Section

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

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

5 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 6 JUDGMENT provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was Section

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

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

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

21. For resolving such inter se conflicts, one other test may also be applied though the persuasive force of such a test is but one of the factors which combine to give a fair meaning to the language of the law. That test is that the later enactment must prevail over the earlier one…..” 24 (IV) However, this

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also