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

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

6 of the Act, 1962 is mandatory to empower the Officers of the DRI for the purpose of issuing show cause notices? c. Whether the power under Section 28 can be exercised only by someone who is empowered to exercise the power under Section Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page

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

6. It would be better to have a look at the relevant section which is reproduced as under: "143(1)(a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-s. (1) of Section 143, - (i) If any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside.” 4) The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

6 SCC 714 34 be regarded as trade or business. Reliance was placed upon State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturer’s Organisation52. 51. It was submitted that in the absence of profit motive, the activity is not trade, commerce or business - within the meaning of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961. Reliance

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

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

6 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 7 JUDGMENT The Tribunal vide its order dated 23.06.2006 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the insertion of the proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be declaratory or clarificatory in nature and was prospective

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

68 to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). …” 34. Section 24(1) incidentally provided for a notice of assessment save as it was otherwise provided in Section 13(2

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

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

2% per month or part of a month of the tax and interest determined on assessment or reassessment, in relation to return of income that was required to be furnished under section 139(1) or section 142(1) or section 148 or section 153A/153C as the case may be, existing on the date of conveyance

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

6 SCC 479, this Court held:- “11. Section 9(2-A) makes applicable to the assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax the provisions relating to offences and penalties contained in the State Acts as if the Central sales tax was a State sales tax. But Section 9(2-A) makes no reference to interest

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

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

6 (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section

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

Section 116(2) of the GOLD ACT: “116. Repeal and savings. – (1) The Gold (Control) Act, 1965 (18 of 1965),  and the  Gold (Control) Ordinance,  1968 (6 of 1968),  are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding   such   repeal,   anything   done   or   any action   taken,   including   any   notification,   order   or   appointment made,   direction   given,   notice,   licence   or   certificate   issued, permission,   authorization

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

Section Note 2 to Section VI, no other classification is permissible. By consideration of the materials placed on record and also applying the 'Common Parlance Test', coconut oil packed in small sachets/containers 67 understood in the market by dealers/consumers as 'Hair Oil' is classifiable under Chapter 33, tariff item 33 05. In the case of MAIPL, 'Coconut

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

2. The provisions of Section 276CC(i) are not intended to apply to the cases of assessees who have been regularly assessed to income tax and have voluntarily submitted their returns of income without issue of any notice to do so by the Assessing Officer in that behalf, within the time permissible to furnish the return under

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

6 taken up for scrutiny under CASS (Computer Assisted Selection of Cases for Scrutiny) and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. In response thereto, books of account were produced by the assessee society and information called for was submitted. The Assessing Officer had arrived at Rs.19,57,32,920/- as the net amount

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

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

2) of section 69, shall furnish to the Superintendent of Central Excise, a 16 return in such form and in such manner and at such frequency as may be prescribed.” 6.1 Definition of “consulting engineer” under Section 65(31), post amendment 2005, reads as under: “Section 65(31) “consulting engineer” means any professionally qualified engineer

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

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

6 of 57 assessee, emphatically stated that the mere size and weight of the boiler make it impossible to assemble the boiler before erection. The process of erection itself involves civil and mechanical engineering, utilising concrete, steel reinforcements, and grouting in a manner that ensures the boiler is in a functioning condition and in an immovable form upon completion

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68,702 (-)6,16,78,845 (-)84,90,900 4,58,78,816 212 Mahagun Mosaic (-)5,21,92,597 11,93,15,012 6,71,22,415 Total difference 3,82,17,922 2,41,030,598 2,09,41,932 35,58,412 12,60,57,575 42,98,06,439 7.6 The reply filed by the assessee

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68,700 shares held by its sole shareholder and holding company Genpact India Investment, Mauritius, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.11.22 15:06:13 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2 the appellant bought back 2