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

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

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

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

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

ii). Whether the resultant final product of the contract would fall within the ambit of “Excisable Goods”? Civil Appeal Nos. 856-857 of 2011 Page 31 of 57 45. The term “excisable goods” defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, 1944, as it existed at the time of the taxable event in question read as follows: “SECTION

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the adjustments specified in the Explanation to Section 115JA. The higher of the two computations is deemed to be the “total income” chargeable to tax and tax is payable accordingly. Thus, Section 115JA enacts a deeming fiction by deeming 30% of book profits

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

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

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to financial year in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction

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

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

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

ii) In case Shri Gunwant Lal Godawat and the legal heir of late Shri   Chhagan   Lal   Godawat   does   not   exercise   the   option   of depositing the amount of Rs.11.04 crores in the stipulated time limit, as given above, Shri Gunwant Lal Godawat and legal heir of late Shri Chhagan Lal Godawat shall be liable to return to the Department immediately

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

The appeal is allowed

ii) where such comparable price cannot be ascertained because of the particular market situation or for any other reason, such value shall be either\026 http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 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

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

ii) it should not be in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee. 16.2. It is axiomatic that such expenditure should be incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. 17. This provision was examined by this Court in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra). It has been explained that in computing

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Section was introduced. 3(i) The provision only applies where the amount of tax which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered exceeds Rs,1,00,000/-. There has been no discovery of the failure in this case from the point of view of evasion of tax. The assessee has submitted return voluntarily, paid advance

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

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

3 (36) of the General Clause Act. If we consider the nature of annexation of the tower to the earth, it is seen that the annexation is not for permanent annexation to the land or the building as the tower can be removed or relocated without causing damage to it. It is also to be noted that the attachment

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

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

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

68, every “person” providing taxable service to any “person” 17 shall pay service tax. Section 69 provides that every “person” liable to pay the service tax….may make an application for registration. In Section 70 also, the words used are “every person liable to pay the service tax…” 8. If the submission on behalf of the respondent

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

68,811, in the total turnover while arriving at export profits under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act, as it stood at the material time. 6. According to A.O., the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.1,94,08,220 from which an amount of Rs.1,74,13,200 (90%) was deducted in terms of clause