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

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

68, 69 and 69A to 69D of the Act, which deals with unexplained income, expenditure etc., it can never be said that the same would be brought under Section 37(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the objective behind both the provisions are overlapping with some connection. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 8 Section

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

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

68 is also liable to get himself registered under Section 69 read with the Rules and such person that is the person liable to pay service tax must also assess the tax and file Return under Section 70

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

68(2), 69(1), 71 and relevant parts of Sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 which are material for the purposes of this case, read as under : \02368.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of any taxable service notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

70 per farm/plot, for issuing Global Location Number (GLN) to farmers, which was approved. 55. Regarding the statutory provisions it was submitted that the words “trade, commerce or business” in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act cannot be read in isolation and have to be seen in context of “charitable purpose” and, even after

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

70 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period commencing from 1st October 2004. The Show Cause Notice issued in this regard stated that, by such omission, the respondent did not wholly and truly disclose material facts, with a purported deliberate intention to evade service tax, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 68

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

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

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

68 consideration, are satisfied. This is because such cases will fall under Section 4(1)(a). III. In   cases   where   one   or   more   of   the   aforesaid   three conditions are not satisfied, and also in cases where there is   no   sale,   the   Adjudicating   Authority   should   treat   the cases   as   falling   under   Section   4(1)(b)   and   hence   take recourse

M/S. O.N.G.C. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

68,70,160/- is now payable by them. M/s ONGC are also liable to pay interest under section 28AB

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

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

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

70 Sections divided in 8 16 Chapters. The relevant portion of Statement of Objects is reproduced below for ready reference: “Statement of Objects and Reasons Amending Act 43 of 2016.— The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was enacted to prohibit benami transactions and the right to recover property held benami. The said Act, inter alia, provides that

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

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.SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS

68,636 quintals 1974-75 - 1,65,308 quintals 1975-76 - 1,30,595 quintals Thus, total production of three years was 4,64,539 quintals. The average production of three years for the period of 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 was 1,54,846.33 quintals (4,64,539 - 3). Since production of sugar for the year

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

Appeal is allowed and the

70, Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam (2001) 7 SCC 525, M/s J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur & Another (1965) 1 SCR 900, Collector of Central Excise v. Kiran Spinning Mills (198) 2 SCC 348, Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd. & Another v. State of UP & Others

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

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

68 word owner had different meanings in different contexts. 58. When it came to the Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd.(supra), this Court took into consideration the ground reality in the context of Section 22 of the Act and approved of taxing the income of a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right