LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

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

4. Levy and collection of duty is provided by Section 3 of the Act on all 'excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured'. The power, therefore, to levy and collect the duty under the charging Section arises when excisable goods are produced or manufactured. What is an 'excisable good' is defined by Sub-section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

4) of section 245D, on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under Clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment. Explanation.- For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income, (a) the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation

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

68. In the case at hand, the show cause notice for the initiation of prosecution for the AY 2011-12 was the earliest in time and hence what falls for our determination is whether the offence under Section 276CC for the AY 2013-14 could be said to have been committed before the show cause notice for initiation

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

4) of the Act. It follows that return was furnished in "the due time" and consequently Section 276CC is not attracted. 2. The provisions of Section 276CC(i) are not intended to apply to the cases of assessees who have been regularly assessed to income tax and have voluntarily submitted their returns of income without issue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

4) and Section 115JAA(5)]. The tax credit to be allowed is the function of the tax payable on book profits and the tax payable on income computed under the normal provisions of the Act, in year one. As stated, the difference of the two is the amount of tax credit to be allowed. The A.O. may vary

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

4 SCC 378 63 1964 (7) SCR 664 38 crore (from FY-2007-08 to 2020-21), which given its financial condition will jeopardise its existence and functioning. 59. Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel argued on behalf of Bhatinda Improvement Trust and adopted the submissions of Mr. Soparkar. She urged, in addition, that it is obligatory on part

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 demanding the service tax along with interest under Section 75 and for imposition of penalty under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vide Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2007 confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.10,42,71,437/- and ordered

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

4) of the Act. In order to ascertain the answer to this question, relevant facts are enumerated hereinbelow: (i) The assessee was established on May 31, 1997 initially as a Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society having been registered, under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 with Registration No. AMC/RR/DCO/9714 by Registrar

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

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

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRY vs. M/S. ACER INDIA LTD

4) executing, without human intervention, a processing programme which requires them to modify their execution by logical decision during the processing run;" Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 85 states: "6.Records, tapes and other media of heading No. 85.23 or 85.24 remain classified in those headings, whether or not they are cleared with the apparatus for which they are intended

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section of the Settings menu of your device. 2. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Samsung reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Samsung or its suppliers own the title, copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Samsung Software. The Samsung Software

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

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

68, 69 and 69A to 69D of the Act, which deals with unexplained income, expenditure etc., it can never be said that the same would be brought under Section 37(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the objective behind both the provisions are overlapping with some connection. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 8 Section

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

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

4) Subject to the provisions of sub- sections (1), (2) and (3), the value shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.” 16. Section 68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

4. The Respondent Company – Assessee filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd1. wherein it was held that : “In the case of a company the following are the propositions of law under section 68

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD

4 of 7 presented under that section; (b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under section 68

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

4 SCC 668. This Court held that Section 15(1)(b) would be applicable only when the goods are cleared from the warehouse under Section 68