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

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.

42 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified CA 3532-36/2020 2 2. The appellant is engaged in providing diversified sports, entertainment and media services. It is registered with the jurisdictional service tax authorities under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for taxable event categories such as management consultant services, event management services, business auxiliary services, business exhibition services

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

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

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

42 i. Reading of Circular dated 05.10.2018 ............................................................... 50 II. Whether “subject matter” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act includes all matters dealt with in summons under the Act? .............................................................................................. 52 III. What is the purport of an “Order” under Section 6(2)(a) of the CGST Act? .............................................................................................. 59 E. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 61 Page

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

42. The question is whether the explanation that lays down the meaning of the expression “plant and machinery” in Section 17 will apply to the expression “plant or machinery” used in Section 17 (5)(d). 43. Learned ASG himself accepted that the expression “plant and machinery” appears at ten different places in Chapters V (Input Tax Credit

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

42 (1976) 1 SCC 466 43 (1976) 3 SCC 167 33 49. It was lastly argued that the expression “trade” carries within it the idea of profitability: counsel cited State of Gujarat v. Mahesh Dhiarjlal Thakkar44, Sodan Singh & Ors. v New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors45 and T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors46. Reliance was placed upon

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

Section 4 of the Act. 68. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has come up with this batch of 4 appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 6564­6567 of 2011.  Facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 9988­9991 of 2011 42

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

68,742/- as claimed by the assessee while arriving at the total income of Rs. 57,18,040/. (d) Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was allowed vide order dated 12.08.2004 while holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of export incentives under Section 80HHC at par with

M/S M.S.SHOES EAST LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,NEW DELHI

42 of 1999). 15. Date of determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods : (1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force - (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46 on the date on which

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

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to financial year in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

42. As a matter of fact, the transactions inter se between the respondent and SICCL under the said MoUs are covered within the exceptions as enumerated in the definition of ‘Service’ under Section 65B(44)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads as follows: “44. ‘service’ means any activity carried out by a person for another

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

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

42 88. In this connection, the following statement made by the Minister of Finance in the Lok Sabha on 18th April, 1964 in reply to some criticism that the provisions of this section might result in hardship to persons whose ornaments or jewellery were given to them by their forefathers, have to be borne in mind: “Often times, people

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

42 of 76 11.7 In order to determine whether any property is movable or immovable, this Court, in the light of the statutory provisions has applied certain principles. It has also been noted that such determination may be done not based on a single test but after applying several criteria on the facts of each case. We will now refer

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. No doubt that the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is one   of   the   consequences   flowing   from   the   adjudgment   of confiscation.   Therefore, in view of the fiction under Section 116, Section   73   of   the   GOLD   ACT   would   have   been   applicable   if consequence of applying such fiction to the confiscations adjudged under the RULES

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

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

68) of the Finance Act defined ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’ as follows: “Manpower recruitment or supply agency” means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other person”. 30. Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act defined ‘taxable service

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

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

42 of 161 Section 28 stand preserved. Explanation 2 did not deal with the jurisdictional exercise of the power of DRI officers in issuing show cause notices under Section 28, whereas, the Validation Act, 2011, introducing Section 28(11) addressed precisely only that issue. 46. He submitted that the conclusion drawn in Mangali Impex (supra) was legally

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

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

42 of 55 Therefore, exclusive expenditure, without contrary legislative intent, which is absent in clause (c), must necessarily be treated as part of attributable expenditure. When the statute uses the term ‘attributable’, it brings into its fold all things concerned with the Indian business, whether they are common expenses allocated to India or expenses incurred exclusively for India