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 is ‘Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption’. This section, as it stood at the relevant point of time, provided that the importer of any warehoused goods may clear those goods from the warehouse for home consumption if – (a) a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods has been presented in the prescribed form

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

HT MEDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed

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

40) of the Finance Act defined ‘event management’ as follows: “‘event management’ means any service provided in relation to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of any arts, entertainment, business, sports, marriage or any other event and includes any consultation provided in this regard” 27. Section 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act, defined taxable service as follows: Civil Appeal

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

section 68 of the Income Tax Act are present? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claim of gift is not genuine is reasonable and based on relevant material and not perverse? These appeals relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The dispute in all these

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

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

68. Neither section 6 of the CGST Act nor the SGST Act nor the Circular dated October 5, 2018, therefore, apply to the fact-situation presented by the two petitions before us as they do not operate and are not intended to operate in a situation where the "intelligence based enforcement action" has repercussion or involvement of taxpayers beyond

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

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

40 Comp Cas 689. 22 See – Rule 147, Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2013 Page 21 of 38 payment of interest subsequent to the date of winding up.23 There is, however, an exception to the two-fold method, as has been held in Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. and Others24, which we will subsequently

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

40,46,923 on the assessee under Section 11AC, (v) imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 on the assessee under Rule 25 of the 2002 Rules and (vi) imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 each on Sh. B. Abdul Salam, Sh. J. M. Ashraf and Sh. Manoj Kumar Amin under Rule

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

40 of 1996 thereby answering the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. ITRC No. 38 of 1996 filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the High Court. Since these appeals arise from the common order passed by the High Court, we also propose to dispose them of by a common order. FACTS The facts relevant

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

40 obvious that someone else is the owner, a person found in possession, which is illegal, can be found to be the owner under Section 69A. The question would arise pointedly, as to, when a common carrier refuses to deliver the consignment and continues to possess it contrary to contract and law and converts it into

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

40% to 20%. Rs. 10,28,462.00 (iii) Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

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

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

40 Section 4 of the Act posits a clear mandate that the person to whom the Act applies shall not hold any illegally acquired property and there is a corresponding duty on the Competent Authority to initiate process after due inquiry under Section 18 of the 1976 Act for   forfeiture   of   such   property   —   whether   acquired   before   the commencement

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

40. If there is a complex, building or civil structure constructed which is intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, construction becomes a supply of service only if consideration for sale is received before the issuance of a completion certificate or after its first occupation, whichever is earlier. Thus, if the consideration for sale is paid after

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

40 of 59 v. ITO [(1981) 4 SCC 173 : 1981 SCC (Tax) 293] has held that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119(1) of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act. The High Court

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

40 Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors.24: “24. …The choice between a strict and a liberal construction arises only in case of doubt in regard to the intention of the legislature manifest on the statutory language. Indeed, the need to resort to any interpretative process arises only where the meaning is not manifest

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

68 came into force on the 1st September 1968. 12 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done, taken, made, given, issued, granted, adjudged, imposed or ordered, as the case may be, under the corresponding provision of this Act as if this Act had commenced on the 29th day of June

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

40 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 time-barred. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.” 50. The extended period of limitation of five years under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was invoked by the Directorate General on the ground that the respondent allegedly failed