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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

68 or rules made thereunder, who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the period prescribed, shall pay simple interest at such rate not below ten per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification

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

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

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

56. Lastly, there is the judgment of this Court in Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore & Anr.17. The assessee was engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real estate etc. As part of its business, it leased out vehicles to its customers, and thereafter, had no physical connection with the vehicles. What

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

56. Counsel urged that Parliament is assumed to have used the word ‘involves’ found in proviso to Section 2(15) as interpreted in Surat Art Silk (supra), in the sense that an activity is involved in the advancement of an object when it is enwrapped or enveloped in the activity of advancement, so that the resulting 60 Federation

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

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

56 of 76 The fact that the tower, if required can be removed, dismantled in the CKD and SKD and sold in the market is not disputed. Application of the tests evolved and discussed above on these items clearly points to the movability as opposed to immovability of these items. We are, thus, of the view that mobile towers

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

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

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

56 64. A priori, we are of the considered opinion that Section 6(1) of the 1976 Act nowhere provides that it is “mandatory” to serve the convict or detenu with a primary notice under that provision whilst initiating action against the relative of the convict.  Indubitably, if the illegally acquired property is held by a person

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

56. Processing under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act be mandated before assessment: 56.1 Under the existing provision of sub-section (1D) of Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, processing of a return is not necessary where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2) of the said Section

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

56 is not ascertainable  for any other  reason. These cases may perhaps   include  sales   otherwise   than   in   the   course   of wholesale trade.  83. Though the words “normal price” were used in Section 4(1) (a), the proviso to clause (a) recognised the fact that the normal price need not be the same universally, but could vary from one class

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

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 45. Opinions of experts. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

68 of the Finance Act, 1994. 51. In its reply to the said Show Cause Notice, the respondent explained that, being under a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable on the 41 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 payments received under the MoUs, it had neither wilfully suppressed nor mis-stated any material facts

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

56,180/- (Rupees sixty lakh fifty- six thousand one hundred eighty). 23. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we must look into few relevant provisions of the Finance Act. 24. During the period of dispute and up to 30.06.2012, Service Tax was levied on various categories of taxable services defined in the Finance Act i.e., under

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR vs. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES

Section 2(f), Item No. 68 of First Schedule--Notification No. 179/77, CE dated 18.6.1977--Exemption in relation to manufacture of which no process is carried on with the aid of power--Assessees using power to lift raw materials--Whether fails within ’process of manufacture’-- Exemption--Whether available. Words & Phrases: "Manufacturing Process"- Meaning of. HEADNOTE: By way of notification

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

56. Chowgule & Co. in the aforementioned case made an application to get benefit of section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the ratio of this case, blending of ore in the course of loading through the mechanical ore handling plant amounted to processing. In section

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

Section 8­A of the Karnataka Sales Tax 56 Act, 1957, providing certain incentives to entrepreneurs starting new industries in the State pursuant to State’s policy   for   “rapid   industrialization”.     The   notification contains a package of reliefs and incentives including one concerning relief from payment of sales tax with which the case was concerned.   There was no dispute that

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

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

68, arguing that ‘Nylon Twine’ was considered a kind of ‘Nylon Yarn’ by traders and those dealing with the subject matter. The Court, applying the trade parlance test, concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish that, in trade parlance, ‘Nylon Twine’ was regarded as a type of ‘Nylon Yarn’ Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025 Page

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

56. In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal26 it was held that: “192. A proviso has to be construed as a part of the clause to which it is appended. A proviso is added to a principal provision to which it is attached. It does not enlarge the enactment. In case the provision is repugnant to the enacting part, the proviso