CENTRAL GST DELHI III vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

68 (1) of the Finance Act provides that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66. Section 67

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

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

67 (power of inspection, search and seizure), section 68 (inspection of goods in movement), section 69 (power to arrest

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

67 Section 83 of the GMB Act 68 Section 25(2) of the GMB Act 69 Section

S. RAJENDRAN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION)

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 60(5)(c) of IBC.". (emphasis supplied) 20.5 Further, in SBI (supra) resolving the apparent conflict between the IBC regime and regime under telecommunication laws, this Court observed that; “66. The scope and ambit of IBC is to speed up the process providing for insolvency19, and achieving maximisation of value of the asset of the entity undergoing CIRP

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

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

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

67,920 ii. Income from undisclosed sources as discussed in para 3.3 i.e., PRM-13 Rs. 6,66,690 iii Investent in Durgadabail building at Hubli as per para 5 being 50% of Rs. 5,24,200/- Rs. 2,62,100 iv Unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C Rs. 8,33,525 The assessment for the years 1981-82 was completed after

M/S. ESCORTS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

section and the conditions and restrictions that may be specified in the notification: http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5 Provided that the Central Government may specify the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the credit of specified duty may be restricted. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, "inputs" includes- (a) inputs

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

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

67 the time and place of removal or where the price is not the sole   consideration   for   the   sale,   even   though   the   price charged in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal are available.  IV. If the case falls under Section 4(1)(b) and the Adjudicating Authority   takes   recourse

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,MUMBAI-I vs. M/S SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA

The appeal is disposed of

68 of the Customs Act, 1962 (no. 52 of 1962), as the case may, makes a specified C.A. No. 216/2007 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT declaration to that effect in the Bill of Entry in the manner specified below. Provided that rate specified therein shall not apply if the importer sells the said imported goods from a place located

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

67,68,717/- Writ Petition No.2267 of 1992 was filed by the assessee in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.01.1993 allowed the writ petition quashing the levy of additional tax under Section

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

Section 68 Rs. 19,16,000.00 (iv) Lease rentals of cinematographic films held to be bogus and assessed as income from other sources http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17 Rs. 63,43,750.00 The Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order of assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment

THE PEERLESS GEN.FIN AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 45 J & 45 K of the Reserve Bank of India Act, as a result of which directions were issued by the RBI dated 15.05.1987. These directions, in turn, were the subject matter of challenge by the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited (supra) i.e. the second Peerless case. The aforesaid directions are set out in full

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

67 36.2. In this connection, Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel, relied upon the decision of this Court in SA Builders Ltd. (supra). He submits that the assessee had duly established that the debit balance in the account of the sister concern was for the purpose of business, and therefore, on these facts, the decision of this Court in SA Builders

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

Appeal is allowed and the

67. Therefore, the legal position seems to be clear and consistent that it is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to interpret the statute as it is. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into a statute which the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately not incorporated. 68. On clear construction and interpretation

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

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 Act, 1994 Category II Management, maintenance or repair services : Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the activity of identifying new prospective customers

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