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

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

253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB). (ii) Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1995) 2 SCC 372. (iii) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. & Anr v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2000) 7 SCC 29. (iv) Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut (1997) 1 SCC 203. [ (v) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Cethar Vessels

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

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

253  (1999) 8 SCC 266 19 23. It is then contended that on account of inordinate and undue delay, the proceedings suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and irrationality.  In that, the convict was convicted on 23.11.1969 for an   offence   punishable   under   the   1962   Act.     The   properties   in question belonging to the respondents were acquired between 1959 till   1980.     Whereas

M.J.EXPORTS LTD. vs. CUSTOMS,EX.&GOLD(CONTROL)APP.TRI

68 commodities, mainly consumer items, were brought under control. Subsequently, as foreign exchange resources came under pressure, import control was extended to cover other commodities as well. Soon after the second world war came to an and, the control of imports and exports was statutorily provided for. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947) came into force

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

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

68 of the Act makes it clear that when the importer of any warehoused goods intends to clear them for home consumption, then a bill of entry for home consumption has be to be filed, and the import duty leviable on such goods has to be paid by the importer, as was held in D.C.M. & Anr. Vs. Union of India

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

3 crores to Rs 250 crores per annum during the period 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. Even after 11-2-2007, taxes are being paid by VIH ranging from Rs 394 crores to Rs 962 crores per annum during the period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 (these figures are apart from indirect taxes which also run in crores). Moreover

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II vs. M/S MODIPON LTD

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: Delving Into The Question Formulated One Significant Fact Common To The Appeals Involving The Assessee-Modipon Ltd. May Be Noted. From The Assessment Year 1984-1985 (From Which Assessment Year

Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, the event for levy of excise duty is the manufacture of goods though the duty is to be paid at the stage of removal of the goods. Pointing out the provisions of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 it is submitted that the 6 (2008) 8 SCC 739 8 advance

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

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

253 dated 30.04.1979. In fact, these circulars came up for their fuller exposition by this Court in the case of Continental Construction (supra), as we shall notice hereafter a little later. At this juncture, we may usefully reproduce the relevant text of these two notifications which throw light on the provisions as then existing and as applied. The relevant parts

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside

68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.” It was held: 17 Page 18 JUDGMENT “13. Manufacture thus involves series of processes. Process

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

3 SCC 346 and  State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Limited, (2004) 10 SCC   201   [hereinafter   referred   as  ‘Kesoram Industries Case’ for brevity].   In the later decision, a   Bench   of   seven   Judges,   after   citing   the   above 38 passage from Justice G.P. Singh’s treatise, summed up   the   following   principles   applicable   to   the interpretation of a taxing statute

GVK INDS. LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act (1961) was unconstitutional on the ground that it constitutes a law with respect to objects or provocations outside the territory of India, thereby being ultra- vires the powers granted by Clause (1) of Article 245. Interpreting Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 245, Chief Justice Pathak (as he then