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

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA vs. M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

68 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) and not Section 15(1)(c) was applicable. As regards Issue no.3, Commissioner held that charge of evasion of duty by mala fide intent, wilful mis-declaration, suppression of facts was clearly established. CEGAT held that there was no willful mis-declaration, no evasion or short levy

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

50,000 each on Sh. B. Abdul  Salam,  Sh.  J.  M.  Ashraf and  Sh. Manoj  Kumar  Amin under Rule 26.  39 62. The   Adjudicating   Authority   held   that   there   was undervaluation on assessee’s part and that therefore, Section 4(1)(a) was not applicable to the assessee’s transactions and that the assessable value had to be ascertained

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

50% to deserving sectors like cottage industries to enable augmentation of market for such sectors, as well as the letter written by CEO- GS1 to the President GS1 (i.e. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce) to permit reduction of fee from ₹400 too ₹70 per farm/plot, for issuing Global Location Number (GLN) to farmers, which was approved. 55. Regarding the statutory

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

68,811, in the total turnover while arriving at export profits under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act, as it stood at the material time. 6. According to A.O., the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.1,94,08,220 from which an amount of Rs.1,74,13,200 (90%) was deducted in terms of clause

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

50. (1A) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of sub-section (1A), if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary

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

50. Sub-section (2) of Section 279 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, the Chief Commissioner, the Principal Director General and the Director General to compound any offence defined under Chapter XXII of the Act, either before or after the initiation of proceedings. 51. While interpreting the nature of the power conferred upon the Principal Chief Commissioner under Section

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

Appeals are allowed

50% of Rs. 5,24,200/- Rs. 2,62,100 iv Unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C Rs. 8,33,525 The assessment for the years 1981-82 was completed after making an addition of Rs.19,93,117/-. Assessing Authority made an assessment for the construction of a commercial complex in Durgadabailu, the investment for which was declared

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

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

50. According to the respondents, by virtue of clause (c) of Section 44C of the Act, 1961, only when the expenditure is of a common nature, and not exclusive expenditure incurred for the Indian branches, would the section become applicable. They rely on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Rupenjuli Tea (supra) to support their argument

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

68,310/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellants sent their replies, inter-alia, submitting that what was imported were not goods and there could be no excise duty on services since the remittances were in Form A-2 and tax at source under the Income-Tax Act was paid in respect of the said contracts

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

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

50 illegally acquired property either by himself or through any other person   on   his   behalf”   –   which   is   similar   to   the wordings/expressions used in Section 6 of the Act, reinforces the above interpretation. 57. Notice   under   Section   6(1)   cannot   be   issued   in   respect   of properties for which the Competent Authority has no evidence or material to record “reasons

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

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

50 of 76 11.7.15 Therefore, the finding of the CESTAT is that even though the tower can be relocated to another site, it would entail damages to it. 11.7.16 There can no dispute that if the newly set up BTS/BSC is relocated to another site it may entail certain damages. However, what is important to be noted is that

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

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

50 of 161 (iv) On the issue of whether there are any statutory limitations to the assignment of powers under Section 28 only to those officers who do assessment or re-assessment under Section 17, he submitted that the scheme of the Act, 1962 as explained in Sayed Ali (supra) and Mangali Impex (supra), clearly indicates that Sections

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

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 to file periodical Service Tax returns in ST-3, as required under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period commencing

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