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

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

x), (y), (z), (za), (zb), (zc), (zh), (zi), (zj), (zk),(zl), (zm), (zn), (zo), (zq), (zr), (zs), (zt), (zu), (zv), (zw), (zx), (zy), (zz), (zza), (zzb), (zzc), (zzd), (zze), (zzf), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzk), (zzl), (zzm), (zzn), (zzo), (zzp), (zzq), (zzr), (zzs), (zzt), (zzu), (zzv), (zzw), (zzx), (zzy), (zzz), (zzza), (zzab), (zac), (zzad), (zzze), (zzzf), (zzzg,) (zzzh), (zzzi), (zzzj), (zzzk

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

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head “Capital gains”, as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand. ...12/- 12 - COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD “CAPITAL GAINS As per assessee

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

X-A, regardless of whether the underlying investment or structure originated prior to that date. Rule 10U is intended to give legislative expression to this position. While Rule 10U(1) enumerates four categories of exclusions from GAAR, Rule 10U(2) specifies the circumstances in which GAAR would apply even to arrangements linked to pre-2017 investments. Thus, where a transaction

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

x)   imposed   a   penalty   of   Rs.   50,000   each   on   Sh.   K.   S. Mohammad   Ali   (Managing   Director)   and   Sh.   Kunjuraman (Manager, Bangalore depot). 26. The Commissioner held that there was evidence to prove undervaluation, but the demand had to be confined only to the transactions   that   the   assessee   had   with   20   customers   from whom   alone   evidence   had   been   collected.   Like

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68 ITR 295 (Mys) (supra) do not seem to lay down the correct rule of law that the Income Tax Officers must obtain leave of the winding up court for commencing or continuing assessment or re­assessment proceedings.” 44 Therefore, this Court held that the authorities can only take steps to determine the tax, interest, fines or any penalty which

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

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

x): ‘To acquire possession of a thing it is necessary to exercise such physical control over the thing as the thing is capable of, and to evince an intention to exclude others:….’ Reference in this connection has been made to the case of Tubantia: Young v. Hichens and of Pierson v. Post [(1805) 3 Caines 175 (Supreme Court

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

x 331 100 Rs.8,00,00,000 Rs.4,79,71,522 3,20,28,478 Less Expenses incurred in relation to sale of property : Solicitor’s fees : Rs.2,50,000 Brokerage : Rs.8,00,000 -------------- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS Rs. 10,50,000 ------------------- Rs.3,09,78,478 =========== The claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs.22,200/- being expenses incurred

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

X Flash Point: a) Abel°C Min b) Pensky martens closed cup, °C, Min 35 66 P:20 P:21 --112 XI Kinematic viscosity, cSt, at 40 C 2.0 to 4.5 P:25 3.997 XII Sediment, percent by mass, Max - P:30 0.02 Page 28 of 76 XIII Total Contamination, mg/Kg, Max 24 EN 12662 FNA XIV Density

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

x 28.   The   Adjudicating   Authority,   however,   has   not accepted   the   contention   of   the   Appellant   and   has observed that the software can issue commands to scan drives, both internal and external and that it has an interface with the user to tune­up the personal computer and that it has also a parallel control feature. These features, according to the Adjudicating Authority

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

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

x (emphasis supplied) Page 11 of 53 01.03.2007 to 26.02.2010 “Rule 3 - Export of taxable service. … (2) The provision of any taxable service shall be treated as export of service when the following conditions are satisfied, namely: (a) such service is provided from India and used outside India; and (b) payment for such service is received by the service provider

GVK INDS. LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act (1961) was unconstitutional on the ground that it constitutes a law with respect to objects or provocations outside the territory of India, thereby being ultra- vires the powers granted by Clause (1) of Article 245. Interpreting Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 245, Chief Justice Pathak (as he then