VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

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

35 of 59 with the appropriate compounding guidelines issued from time to time. At the outset it is important to ascertain the compounding guidelines which would be applicable for the purpose of adjudication of the compounding application made by the appellant. 46. The 2014 guidelines superseded the 2008 guidelines and came into effect from 01.01.2015. Clause

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

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. 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

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

ii) appellant should pay interest on the duty confirmed in terms of Section 28AB of the Customs Act from the date of enforcement of the said section till the date of actual payment of duty. The interest amount was directed to be worked out and communicated to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Pithampur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal is allowed and the

ii) conveying the ore to the dressing plant; (iii) washing, screening and dressing the ore; (iv) conveying of the ore from the mine site to the river side; (v) transport of the ore from the river side to the harbour by means of barges; (vi) stacking of the ore at the harbour in different stock piles according to its physical

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

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

35 of 55 In CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (1981] 128 ITR 294, the Supreme Court held that the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ii). The ASG cited the larger bench decision in New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab25 (hereafter “NDMC”) to urge that state entities are not exempt from Union taxation, if they engage in trade or business. It was furthermore submitted that the effect of proviso (i) to Section 2(15) is that there can be no question

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

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

ii) a taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption; iii) a taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; iv) it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; It is further observed and held that: v) the “plain meaning rule” suggests that when the language in the statute is plain