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

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

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

35 (2010) 5 SCC 122 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 62 of 91 movability. This Court referred to the definition of movable property in Section 3(36) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines movable property as property of every description except immovable property. The same enactment defines immovable property in Section 3(26), which

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

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and to the facts of that case. It was noted that the borrowed 68 amount in question was not utilized by the assessee in its own business but was advanced as interest free loan to its sister concern. This Court opined that this factum was not really relevant. What was relevant

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

35. Thus, it appears that there is distinct line of authorities which clearly lay down that in considering a question of penalty, mens rea is not a relevant consideration. Even assuming that when the statute says that one is liable for penalty if one furnishes inaccurate particulars, it may or may not by itself be held to be enough

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

35. Though the expression “copyright” has not been defined separately in the “definitions” section of the Copyright Act, yet, section 14 makes it clear that “copyright” means the “exclusive right”, subject to the 51 provisions of the Act, to do or authorise the doing of certain acts “in respect of a work”. When an “author” in relation

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

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

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

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

35 or an associate unless the link and the connection with the illegal activities of the convict/detenu is established.  For, the Act is only directed to forfeiture of ‘illegally acquired properties’ of a person falling under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 2(2) including their specified properties held by third party.  Independent properties of the   relatives

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

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

68. Payment of Service Tax. – (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 "such taxable services as may be notified" by the Central Government

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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

35 participating in the races, may be made either at the Club’s totalizators (the totes) by purchasing tickets of Rs.5 denomination or with the bookmakers (bookies) who are licensed by the Club and operate within the first enclosure. The totalizator is an electronically operated device which pools all the bets and after deducting betting tax and the Club charges

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

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

1) provides that service tax on the value of the taxable service received during the calendar month shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government by 25th day of the month immediately following. The proviso, however, carves out an exception in respect of the assessee, who is an individual or a proprietary firm or a partnership firm

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. 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

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

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

Appeal is allowed and the

35(1)(B) of the Act, it would be erroneous to incorporate the word in the section and then interpret the Statute. In this view of the matter Chowgule\022s case and Nilgiri\022s case dealt with by this court in Chowgule\022s case are clearly distinguishable because of the language of the statutes. 62. The intention