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

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

68 of 161 he was a Customs officer under the Customs Act. In addition, that he was entrusted with the functions of the proper officer under Section 6

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

6   of   68)   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the ORDINANCE’) was promulgated on 29th June, 1968.8  Section 117 of the  ORDINANCE

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

68, namely, the charging section and the liability to pay. Rule 6 in sub- rule (1) provides that service

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D.- (1) Where the total income of an assessee,— CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 6

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 68 of the Act, and that the onus on the Assessee Company stood fully discharged. 3.7. The AO had issued summons to the representatives of the investor companies. Despite the summons having been served, nobody appeared on behalf of any of the investor companies. The Department only received submissions 5 through dak, which created a doubt about

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION) vs. COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX NEW DELHI

Bench: The Tribunal Arose From An Order Dated 1 August 2013 Of The Commissioner (Adjudication) Which Dealt With Five Show Cause Notices Dated 20 October 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 April 2011, 23 March 2012 & 23 April 2013. The First Of The Five Show Cause Notices Invoked The Extended Period Of Limitation.

68) and Section 65(86b) of the Finance Act 1994, there was no warrant to allow the invocation of the extended period of limitation and to direct the determination of the penalty following the re-quantification of the demand. The extended period 6

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD

6 SCC 117]. 20. There is no dispute that where the imported goods are allowed to be warehoused under Section 68

M/S BISCO LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

6 of imported goods were kept outside the bond under a shed as the trailers transporting the goods could not enter the notified warehouse in view of the soil becoming very sluggish on account of heavy rains and also because of paucity of space. The Collector, therefore, opined that the appellant had removed the 264 cases of warehoused goods valued

M/S. SNEH ENTERPRISES vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

6 (A) the highest comparable price for the said article or like article from the exporting country or territory to any third country in the ordinary course of trade as determined under sub-section (2); or (B) the cost of production of the said article or like article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for selling

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6

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

68 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-dumping duty (ADD) levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the period June 1998 to August 1998, which were exempt from duty vide (i) 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Notifications No. 30/97 Cus dated

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

6. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, in support of this appeal, inter alia, urged that the liability to pay interest and penalty being statutory one, the service provider was responsible therefor and not the service recipient. 7. Mr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 32, as discussed above, clearly envisages separate depreciation for a building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. The word “plant” is given inclusive meaning under Section 43(3) which nowhere includes buildings. The Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 68 of 91 Rules prescribing the rates of depreciation specifically provide grant of depreciation on buildings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section 143(1) and accepted it. Subsequently, the A.O. rectified the alleged mistake and charged interest under Section 234B of `1,10,67,561/-. The A.O. further charged interest under Section 234C of `40,18,170/-. This levy

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

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

Section 406 makes it abundantly clear that any such act by a carrier attracts the offence under Section 406. The Court in other words would have to allow the commission of an offence by the appellant in the process of finding that 71 the appellant is the owner of the goods. In other words, proceeding on the basis

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

6 7. The   appellant/assessee   in   the   present   civil   appeal   has reiterated   the   argument   that   the   Officer,   having   made   the addition under Section 144 of the 1961 Act being “best judgment assessment”,   had   invoked   powers   under   sub­Section   (3)   of Section 145.   For, assessment under Section 144 is done only if the books are rejected.  In that case

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

6. Republic of France 7. Federal Republic of Germany 8. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China 9. Republic of Ireland 10. Republic of Italy 11. Japan 12. Republic of Korea 13. Kingdom of Netherlands 14. Republic of Singapore 15. Kingdom of Sweden 16. India-Taipei Association in Taipei (Taiwan) 17. United States of America