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

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

58. As far as the value of the taxable service is concerned, this is a matter which is governed by Section 67 of the Act. Since Section 66 imposed service tax on the value of the taxable service, Section 67 provides for how the value of the taxable service is to be determined. Section

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

58. Learned senior counsel lastly submitted that an activity, to be “trade, commerce or business”, must be profit driven. Profit motive is a quintessential element and an activity without profit motive will not result in “trade, commerce or business” in terms of the decision in State of A.P v. H. Abdul Bakhi & Bros63. If exemption is not granted

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

68. Special duties of customs. – (1) In the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, or in that Schedule, as amended from time to time, there shall be levied and collected as a special duty of customs, an amount equal to two per cent of the value of the goods as determined in accordance

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

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

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, it is evident that in an immovable property there is neither mobility nor marketability as understood in the excise law. Whether an article is permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth requires determination of both the intention as well

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

58,463 33,68,546 1992-93 61,39,448 16,53,560 64,30,765 1993-94 7,21,192 NIL 7,21,192 1994-95 65,145 NIL 65,192 1995-96 3,99,023 1,32,333 3,99,023 Total 1,57,77,630 24,36,352 1,60,66,947” 5. Section

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

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

Section is on the receipt of the income and that the 68 word owner had different meanings in different contexts. 58

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned

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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

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 Act as enacted by the respective State Legislatures, since

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

58 wherever there was no sale, was to be on the basis of the Rules, in view of Section 4(1)(b). Even in cases where there was a sale— (i) in   the   course   of   wholesale   trade   but   the   conditions stipulated in clause (a) were not satisfied or  (ii) the normal price could not be ascertained for any other

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 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

58. The seventh proviso to Section 10 (23C) (vi) alludes to business and profits (‘being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of its objectives and separate books of account are maintained by it in respect of such business’). The interpretation of Section 10 (23C) therefore, is that the trust or educational

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

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

Section 8.   Accordingly, we may lean in favour of the view taken by the High Court of Kerala and   Calcutta   High   Court   reproduced   above,   for   independent reasons delineated hitherto.   The view taken by the Madras High Court in the impugned judgment, therefore, does not commend to us and is reversed. 66. The parties had invited our attention to other

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

Appeal is allowed and the

58. In view of the specific language of the Statutes in Nilgiri\022s case (supra) and Chowgule\022s case (supra), the term \021processing\022 has been specifically incorporated in the statute, therefore, the assessees were justifiably held to be entitled to the benefit. 59. Undoubtedly, the facts of Nilgiri\022s case are identical to the facts of the present case

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

68 0 20,87,4 50 12,58,4 70 NIL 8,28,9 80 8,28,9 80 ====== == ...13/- - 13 - On analysis of the said chart, one finds that, according to the assessee, the net income chargeable to tax under the head “Capital gains” is Rs.6,77,530/-, whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, the net income is Rs.8

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

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

68-70 (Annexure R XIII). As the work of Directorates of Inspection and Revenue Intelligence has been carved out from the work originally performed by the Collectorates of Customs and Central Excise and as no separate personnel was recruited to man the posts in these two Directorates, the members of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Class I have