COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was invoked by the Directorate General on the ground that the respondent allegedly failed to file periodical Service Tax returns in ST-3, as required under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period commencing from 1st October 2004. The Show Cause Notice issued in this regard stated that

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

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

68. An assessee may be held liable to pay tax along with interest pursuant to an audit, scrutiny, or investigation. This liability can be discharged either through self-assessment or by way of assessment conducted by the Department. The Act contemplates the issuance of a show cause notice under Sections 73

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

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

73 64. In the context of Section 67 of the Act, I queried Shri Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel as to what would happen if a Notification is issued under Section 93 of the Act, exempting the acquiring bank from the levy of service tax payable by acquiring bank under Section 65(33a)(iii). Section

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

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. (4) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section. Tax credit in respect of tax paid on deemed income relating to certain companies. 115JAA. (1) Where

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

68,676/- and demand of Rs.96,98,801/-, inclusive of interest at Rs.55,53,882/- was raised after adjusting pre-paid tax of Rs.5,23,756/-. The Department then issued show- cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC on 14.6.1996. Later, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 3.10.1996. 7. A-3 also failed

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

73, 74 & 75 of the GMB Act, which provide for management of all monies received by the GMB; and Section 76 of the GMB Act, which permits the setting aside of surplus money only for “expanding existing facilities or creating new facilities at the ports” or for meeting with contingencies caused on account of “fire, cyclones, shipwrecks or other

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

HT MEDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed

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

73 – provided for recovery of Service Tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. 25. Section 65(41) of the Finance Act defined ‘event manager’ as follows: “‘event manager’ means any person who is engaged in providing any service in relation to event management in any manner” 26. Section

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

68. The authorities did not arrive at a finding that the consideration http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 26 amount fixed for the sale of property was wholly inadequate. The authorities also do not show that what are the inaccurate particulars furnished by the Appellant. They also do not state that what should have been the accepted

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

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

73,758/­ M/s.   Mailatty   Wood Industries Rs. 23,24,056/­ Rs. 23,24,056/­ M/s.   National   Wood Products Rs. 61,14,236/­ Rs. 61,14,236/­ M/s.   Bharath Chemicals Rs. 5,52,839/­ Rs. 5,52,839/­ 36. In   addition   to   the   above,   the   Adjudicating   Authority confirmed the demand of interest under Section 11AB, ordered 24 the confiscation

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

73(2)(b) and 73A of the Mauritius Income Tax Act, which recognise control, management, and the Place of Effective Management17 as determinative of residence, even prior to October 2018. 7.7. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the Mauritian statutory regime mandates control and management within Mauritius, which is pari materia with Section

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

73(1) of the Act 1994 by invoking the extended period of limitation with interest and penalty.  9. The show cause notice referred to above was adjudicated by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DGCEI, Delhi, who, in turn, confirmed the demand of service tax amount to Rs. 56,07,05,595/­ (Rupees Fifty Six Crore Seven Lakh Five Thousand Five

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

73,68,702 (-)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

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

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

68. Further, it is relevant to note that both the revenue and the CESTAT have erroneously resorted to focusing on whether the bought out parts were essential to the functioning of the assembled boiler or not. The determination of the question, whether or not the bought out items were ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’, in terms of this Court’s observation

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