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

VII of Salmond on Jurisprudence, the classification of rights into positive or negative rights, vested or tangible rights etc. is only for the purpose of characterization of such rights in the context of co- related duties. Such classification cannot be relied upon to interpret the scope of the expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ appearing

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

36 IV. That the price lists recovered from M/s. Plydeal could not be relied upon as M/s. Plydeal did not purchase plywood from the assessee; V. That   the   Adjudicating   Authority’s   decision   to   confirm undervaluation to the extent of 75% to M/s. Shree Shyam Plywoods and 70% to the other dealers was not appropriate and that undervaluation could

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

VII of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the categories of services concerning land and buildings, which are within the purview of the CGST Act. Section 2(102) defines service as meaning anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash

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

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

VII, Noida and two silver bars found at premises of M/s Lunia & Co Delhi and in Civil Appeal Nos. 7689-90 of 2022 Page 5 of 27 sustaining addition of Rs.3,06,36,909/- being unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act? (ii) If the answer to the above question

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

vii) penalty of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh only) was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 20. It was against this order that the related appeal was filed by the appellant before the CESTAT. By the impugned order dated 30.04.2009, CESTAT dismissed the appeal. 21. Hence the present appeal. This Court by order

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00 (Rs. 69,15,757.00) \026 Rs. 80,18,012.00 = - Rs. 11,02,255.00) In this manner, the carry-forward loss of Rs. 15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs. 11,02,225.00. By order dated nil September, 2002, the Deputy Commissioner

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi); (b) in the case of a computer programme-- (i) to do any of the acts specified in clause (a); 27(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer

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

vii) where the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded   in   writing   considers   that   any   properties   of   such person are held on his behalf by any other person, such other person. Explanation 4.— For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby provided that the question whether any person is a person to whom the provisions of   this   Act   apply

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

36 the appellant the punters who bet at the totalizator or with the bookmakers have no direct contract with the Club. 18. The Club pays from its own funds the prize money (stake money) to the winning horses. The horses which win the first, second, third and up to 5th or 6th places are given prizes by the Club

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

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

vii) though all cases of literal interpretation would involve strict rule of interpretation, but the strict rule may not necessarily involve the former, especially in the area of taxation; viii) while interpreting a statutory law, if any doubt arises as to the meaning to be assigned to a word or a phrase or a clause used in an enactment

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

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

36 of 66 control shall be divided equally in the ratio of 50% each for the Central and the State tax administration; iii. The division of taxpayers in each State shall be done by computer at the State level based on stratified random sampling and could also take into account the geographical location and type of the taxpayers

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

36 1996. All the trade bodies60 as well Bureau of Indian Standards are members of its governing council. 54. It was submitted that the revenue had granted exemptions to the assessee society under Section 12A and Section 10(23C)(iv) while issuing various certificates from time to time (from AY 1996-1997 to 2007-2008); therefore

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

vii. Section 4 of the Act, 1962 ...................................................................... 98 viii. Section 6 of the Act, 1962 .................................................................... 106 ix. Observations on the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Act, 1962 ..................................................................................................... 114 x. Bombay High Court decision in Sunil Gupta (supra) ........................... 123 xi. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2022 ...................................... 138 F. CONCLUSION...................................................................................... 154 Review Petition

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

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

VII, Mumbai. The Commissioner vide Order dated 26.09.2000 affirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer. 8. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, vide Order dated 08.08.2012, allowed the appeal of the respondent by relying upon the Bombay High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income

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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

vii. In the event the respondent defaulted in performing its obligations under the MOUs, SICCL was entitled to terminate the agreement, and the withheld amount would be liable to forfeiture. 10 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 8. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit6, on the basis of specific intelligence that the respondent