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 CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

45 of 161 “(4) In specifying the conditions and limitations referred to in sub-section (1), and in assigning functions under sub-section (1A), the Board may consider any one or more of the following criteria, including, but not limited to-- (a) territorial jurisdiction; (b) persons or class of persons; (c) goods or class of goods; (d) cases

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68,700 shares held by its sole shareholder and holding company Genpact India Investment, Mauritius, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.11.22 15:06:13 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2 the appellant bought back

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

45,49,93,270/- 2010-11 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3) 3,36,22,76,980/- 60,00,00,000/- 2,76,22,76,980/- 2010-11 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3) 1,65,14,76,430/- 1,65,14,76,430/- 2011-12 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3

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

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

45 of 76 recorded do not justify the conclusion of the Tribunal inasmuch as on removal, a turbo alternator gets dismantled into its components - steam turbine and alternator. It appears that the Tribunal did not keep in mind the distinction between a turbo alternator and its components. Thus, in our view, the test of permanency fails.” As regards marketability

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

45 1989 (3) SCR 1038 46 (2002) 8 SCC 481 47 (1973) 4 SCC 194 48 “It is considered necessary to make provision for the orderly establishment and development of Industries in suitable areas in the State. To achieve this object, it is proposed to specify suitable areas for Industrial Development and establish a Board to develop such areas

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

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

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

68,30,270 + 3,83,925). Under assessment of income for the three years is, therefore, Rs.1,69,92,728 i.e., (18657246 – 1664518). The sales estimated by AO for each of the 3 years less depreciation for each year is taken as the basis for determining the proportion in which the under- assessment has been made. AY Sales estimated

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

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

45. Section 65(33a) was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.05.2006. As already noticed, credit card services made its first appearance as part of banking and financial services under Section 65(10). Thereafter, it became part of Section 65(12), when it became part of the definition of the words “banking and other financial services

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 68 of the Act, and that the onus on the Assessee Company stood fully discharged. 3.7. The AO had issued summons to the representatives of the investor companies. Despite the summons having been served, nobody appeared on behalf of any of the investor companies. The Department only received submissions 5 through dak, which created a doubt about

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

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

45 or detenu, such person would be a person to whom the Act applies vide Section 2(2)(c) read with Explanation 2.   Such person may be a recorded owner of the property — having acquired it wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets derived or   obtained   from   or   attributable   to   unlawful   activity

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies and Rs.29,53,631/- was added on account of unexplained cash receipts. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted an amount of Rs.7,48,463/- holding that jewellery found in locker weighing 686.4 gms stood explained in view

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

3. T-2014 dated 30.05.90 277 Total 595 7. Acting on the basis of information received that the appellant had misused the warehousing facility, officials of the 5 respondent had searched the industrial premises of the appellant including the notified public bonded warehouse on 07.08.1992. In the course of the search, the stock lying within the notified public bonded warehouse

M/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

Section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of what has been described for the sake of brevity to be the Blue Book summoned from the Government of Uttar Pradesh and certain documents summoned from the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh? The Court observed that "the right to know which is derived from the concept of freedom

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

45 IV. That the proviso to Section 11A(1) was applicable to the present case and the show cause notice was not barred by limitation, and  V. That each impugned clearance was assessable to duty on the particular price (transaction value) charged for each removal. 76. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has come up with this batch

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

3) 398 1992 SCALE (1)1145 ACT: Customs Act, 1962:Sections 2(33), 25, 45, 51, 53, 54, 59, 68