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

Appeals are allowed

5) of Section 132 and the presumption cannot be said to have the effect of excluding the application of Section 68

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. G. DAYARAM & CO

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

5) of Section 1 of the ESI Act. 58. An argument raised by the Appellants-herein is the issue relating to the `doctrine of pari materia’. It is contended that since the ESI Act does not define the term 'shop', the said definition may be ascertained in light of the definitions under the relevant Shops and Commercial Establishments

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

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

68 : The chargeability : The taxable event: 19. Section 66 is the charging section. Under sub-section (3), service tax is levied at the rate of 5

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

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

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.

5 “CBEC” CA 3532-36/2020 8 the provisions of the circular dated 23 August 2007 which specifies the requirement that the service provider and the person whose service is provided must be governed by an employer-employee relationship in order for the provisions of Section 65(68

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

68 and the same would not be applicable to the present case. 15. Section 15(1) provides for the rate of duty and tariff valuation applicable to any \023imported goods\024. The term \023imported goods\024 is defined in Section 2(25) of the Act to mean any goods brought into India from a place outside India

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 was ordered and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) had no application. Finally, this Court held that the consequence of non-removal of the warehoused goods within the permitted period or the permitted extension by virtue of Section 72 is certain. The date on which it comes to an end is the date relevant for determining the rate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section 143(1) and accepted it. Subsequently, the A.O. rectified the alleged mistake and charged interest under Section 234B of `1,10,67,561/-. The A.O. further charged interest under Section 234C of `40,18,170/-. This levy

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5) of the IBC, as the case may be. This is because the demand notices are an 28 initiation   of   legal   proceedings   against   the   Corporate   Debtor. However, the above analysis would not be complete unless this Court   examines   the   extent   of   powers   which   the   respondent authority can exercise during the moratorium period under the IBC.  43 In   the   above   context

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

5. The appellant/assessee then filed an appeal before the High Court under   Section  260A  of   the  1961  Act.     The  appeal was 4 admitted on 27.4.2006 on the following substantial question of law: ­ ‘‘Whether claim to purchase of goods by the assessee could be dealt with under Section 68

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

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

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

5 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 6 JUDGMENT provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was Section

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

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

68 is also liable to get himself registered under Section 69 read with the Rules and such person that is the person liable to pay service tax must also assess the tax and file Return under Section 70, as prescribed in the Rules. 61. I have already explained the scope of Sections 67 to 70. The contention

S. RAJENDRAN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION)

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 60(5)(c) of IBC.". (emphasis supplied) 20.5 Further, in SBI (supra) resolving the apparent conflict between the IBC regime and regime under telecommunication laws, this Court observed that; “66. The scope and ambit of IBC is to speed up the process providing for insolvency19, and achieving maximisation of value of the asset of the entity undergoing CIRP

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

5. For the purposes of this article, the term “alienation” means the sale, exchange, transfer, or relinquishment of the property or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law in force in the respective Contracting States.” 12.2. Thus, pursuant to Article 13(4), capital gains from the alienation of shares were taxable only

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

5 of 8 \02322. As we have said, Rules 2(1)(d)(xii) and (xvii) had been held to be illegal in Laghu Udyog Bharati only because the charging provisions of the Act provided otherwise. Now that the charging section itself has been amended so as to make the provisions of the Act and the Rules compatible, the criticism

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