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

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

68 or rules made thereunder, who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the period prescribed, shall pay simple interest at such rate not below ten per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

68. On clear construction and interpretation of section 35B(1A) of the Act, we are clearly of the opinion that the respondent\022s activity amounts to \023processing\024 only and the activity does not amount to either \023production\024 or \023manufacture\024. The term \023processing\024 has not been included in section 35

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

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

35 of 66 20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22.06.2020 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, GST Policy Wing. 43. In conformity with the scheme of cross-empowering officers, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 mandates that where a proper officer issues an order under the CGST Act, he has to pass an order under the SGST

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

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

35 of 1985 with effect from 24th May 1985, states that Section 530 is subject to provisions of Section 529A of the Companies Act. Section 530 of the Companies Act deals with preferential payments that are a level below the overriding preferential payments under Section 529A of the Companies Act. Clause (a) to Section

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

35 In this context, we may note that when the insolvency process commences, the adjudicating authority is mandated to declare a moratorium on continuation or initiation of any coercive legal action against the Corporate Debtor. Section 14 of the IBC reads as under: 14.  Moratorium.––(1)   Subject   to   provisions   of sub­sections   (2)   and   (3),   on   the   insolvency commencement date

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

Section 35(2A) of the Act was not produced by the assessee so as to entitle it to the claim of deduction of the donation made. The learned ITAT took the view that the aforesaid conditions were not material. The High Court on due consideration found that the said conditions were necessary preconditions to the grant of statutory registration

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

35 10(46). He urged that in terms of Section 11(7)58 the Board has an option to claim exemption either under Section 11 or under Section 10(46). There is no bar for claiming exemption under either of those provisions. 52. Mr. Dhruv Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

35,130/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153(D) of 1961 Act. Rupees 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1961 Act. Rs.15,09,672/- was added on account of unexplained jewellery. Rupees 45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies

HT MEDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed

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

68) of the Finance Act defined ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’ as follows: “Manpower recruitment or supply agency” means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other person”. 30. Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act defined ‘taxable service

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

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

35 of 76 considered as “capital goods” as defined under the CENVAT Rules. Since these are “capital goods”, these are liable to excise duty, of which the service provider can take CENVAT credit. The Delhi High Court also held that these goods can be said to be “inputs” for providing output service and hence eligible for CENVAT credit. Analysis

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

35 56. By Final Order Nos. 1145­1147/2010 dated 26.08.2010, the CESTAT allowed all the three appeals and remanded the matter for re­quantification of duty in the light of the findings given. 57. The findings recorded and the reasons therefor, as given by CESTAT, are as follows:­ I. That the statements given by third parties in the course of investigation stood

CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

68 (1) of the Finance Act provides that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66. Section 67 (1) of the Finance Act, provides that where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value then such value shall be the gross amount

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. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

35 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 holding that the respondent did not act as a real estate agent or a consultant while acting in furtherance of the MoUs entered with SICCL. The profitability of the respondent was contingent upon the rate at which land was procured by it from the sellers. 42. As a matter of fact

M/S. H.P.L. CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

section or Chapter notes. Tribunal has totally failed to consider the said interpretation of Rule 1. The Tribunal has further held that since the starting raw materials were not classifiable under Chapter 25, the residue in question cannot be a product covered by Chapter 25. This finding is based on wrong assumptions and reasoning. There is no such requirement