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

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

68. Payment of Service Tax. – (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay Service Tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of "such taxable services as may be notified" by the Central Government

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

68,82,801/- as Duty Draw Back (DDB) and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 1,57

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

68   of   the   1961   Act,   as   stated   in   the assessment   order.     Indisputably,   the   Officer   gave   several opportunities to the appellant/assessee to prove the authenticity of the entries in question.  As a matter of fact, summon notices were   issued   to   the   named   fifteen   creditors,   but   no evidence/explanation was forthcoming.   The finding of fact so recorded by the Officer is unexceptionable

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

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

Section 2 to mean 'goods specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt'. The words 'excisable good', therefore, has a connotation of its own. Civil Appeal Nos. 856-857 of 2011 Page 37 of 57 5. In several decisions rendered by this Court commencing from

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

INDUSTRIAL DEV.BANK OF INDIA THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26th

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68, on the date on which a bill of entry 30 (1967) 3 SCR 855. Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2013 Page 28 of 38 for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: Provided that if a bill

M/S. INDCON STRUCTURALS (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

Section Notes/Chapter Notes of Chapters 39, 57, 59 and 68, felt it necessary to conduct an on-the-spot

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

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

57 of 76 premise that these items namely tower, its parts thereof and PFBs are immovable properties. In paragraph no. 52 of the impugned judgment, while dealing with the case of CCE Vs. Sai Samhita Storages (P) Ltd., (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Bombay High Court observed that, “The towers are admittedly

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

57. Countering the contentions of the revenue that if entities making profit but not involved in commercial activity desire exemption, they ought to apply under Section 10(46) IT Act, it was submitted that the expression “constituted by or under an Act” in Section 10(46) does not include all entities like the assessee, which

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

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

57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 17 JUDGMENT effect to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub- section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall

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

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

57 65. The expression “such other person” in Section 6(2) is, thus, referable to a person falling in class “through any other person on his behalf”.  That is the person to whom the Act applies, as noted in the opening part of Section 6(1) of the Act.  In such a case, the convict or detenu

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

57,68,593/- for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012 Category III Business Auxiliary Services (marketing and distributing): Section 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance

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

57 4(1)(a) of the Act. In the penultimate paragraph of its decision, the Constitution bench answered this question in the following manner: “Further, we hold that “transaction value” as defined in Section 4(3)(d) brought into force by the Amendment Act, 2000, statutorily engrafts the additions to the “normal price” under the old Section

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

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

57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly stood vested

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

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

Appeal is allowed and the

57. In Chowgule\022s case the court specifically examined a case decided by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri\022s case. In this case, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that blending of different kinds of tea does not amount to processing. The Revenue, in support of its arguments, placed reliance on the said

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

57:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ...... 19 D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ... 21 E. ANALYSIS ................................................................ 24 I. Whether the respondent rendered services falling within the category of ‘Real Estate Agent’, taxable under Section 65(105)(v) read with Section

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

57,51,520.00 (ii) Reduction of claim of depreciation in respect of leasing vehicles from 40% to 20%. Rs. 10,28,462.00 (iii) Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section 68