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

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

68 of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the CESTAT in Appeal No. ST/136/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, from the impugned judgment and order passed by the CESTAT, it appears that the CESTAT has considered only one issue namely whether for the period pre 01.05.2006 – the Finance Bill, 2006 whether

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

37. Heading of Section 68 is ‘Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption’. This section, as it 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

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION) vs. COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX NEW DELHI

Bench: The Tribunal Arose From An Order Dated 1 August 2013 Of The Commissioner (Adjudication) Which Dealt With Five Show Cause Notices Dated 20 October 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 April 2011, 23 March 2012 & 23 April 2013. The First Of The Five Show Cause Notices Invoked The Extended Period Of Limitation.

section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal further relied upon the decision in Board of Cricket Control for India v. Commissioner4 to uphold the order of the Commissioner imposing the demand of service tax under the category of programme producer services during the relevant period. The Tribunal did not accept the argument of the appellant that

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

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

37. Section 36 of the Act deals with other deductions that may be allowed while computing the total income under the heading ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ referred to in Section 28 of the Act. Section 36(1)(iii) says that the deductions provided for the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

37. The writ petitioners have relying upon the decision in Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf contended that the amendment to Section 68

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

Section 32, as discussed above, clearly envisages separate depreciation for a building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. The word “plant” is given inclusive meaning under Section 43(3) which nowhere includes buildings. The Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 68 of 91 Rules prescribing the rates of depreciation specifically provide grant of depreciation on buildings

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

68   of   the   1961   Act.     The appellant/assessee adopted a three­pronged plea in support of the   above   contention;   First,   that   assessment   order   refers   to Section 145(2) of the 1961 Act.  It should have mentioned Section 145(3) of the 1961 Act.  For that, the appellant/assessee relies on the  amendment  of   the   1961   Act  which  came   into  effect  from

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68 Section 25(2) of the GMB Act 69 Section 32 r/w Sections 37-30 of the GMB Act 40 utilization

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

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

37 of 66 notification No. 39/2017-CT dated 13.10.2017 authorizing the State Officers for the purpose or refunds under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. 3.1 The issue has been examined in the light of relevant legal provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. It is observed that Section 6 of the CGST Act provides for cross empowerment

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

68 of the Customs Act stand fulfilled and the imported goods are cleared for home consumption. In the context of the present case, we must hold that the debt had become ‘due’ in terms of the two adjudication orders dated 15th September 2000 and 10th October 2000 and ‘payable’ immediately. Thus, the customs duty became ‘due and payable’ prior

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

37, in supersession of the 1975 Valuation Rules. 91. Rule 3 of the aforesaid 2000 Rules makes it clear that the value of excisable goods, for the purposes of clause (b) of sub­ section (1) of Section 4, should be determined in accordance with the said Rules. Therefore, it is clear that the valuation as per the Rules

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside.” 4) The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

68. Special duties of customs. – (1) In the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, or in that Schedule, as amended from time to time, there shall be levied and collected as a special duty of customs, an amount equal to two per cent of the value of the goods as determined in accordance

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

Sections 2(33), 25, 45, 51, 53, 54, 59, 68, 69, 74, 113(d) & 114. Import-Export Policy 1988-91: Paras 22, 23, 24(1), 174(1)-Appendix 6-List 2, Item 36-List 3, Item 37

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

37,27,992 1991-92 33,68,546 4,58,463 33,68,546 1992-93 61,39,448 16,53,560 64,30,765 1993-94 7,21,192 NIL 7,21,192 1994-95 65,145 NIL 65,192 1995-96 3,99,023 1,32,333 3,99,023 Total

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

37 of 59 (2) Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General. (3) Where any proceeding has been taken against any person under sub-section (1), any statement made or account or other document produced