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, 74, and 76 respectively, wherein the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

77(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. 6. I do not impose any penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 upon M/s Elegant Developers, 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad (UP).” 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the Appellate Tribunal which stands allowed vide

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given

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. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

68,310/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellants sent their replies, inter-alia, submitting that what was imported were not goods and there could be no excise duty on services since the remittances were in Form A-2 and tax at source under the Income-Tax Act was paid in respect of the said contracts

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. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has come up with this batch of 4 appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 6564­6567 of 2011.  Facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 9988­9991 of 2011 42 69. The facts of this last batch of appeals are also similar to the preceding cases. M/s. Hajee Timber Complex, Mangalore, which   is   the   assessee   concerned   in   this

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

68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 31,71,692.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00 (100% of the tax). The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the order

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

68,586,950 8,916,304 Total tax payable 77,503,252 77,503,254 Less: Set-off of MAT credit Less: TDS Less: Advance Tax 54,015,189 5,231,557 19,316,900 4,198,191 19,316,900 Balance tax payable 1,060,394 53,988,163 Interest under 234B 11,067,561 15 Interest under 234C

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

77) ITR 518) in the context of Sections 22(1) and 22(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (in short the ’Old Act’) which are in pari-materia of Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) of the Act. It follows that return was furnished in "the due time" and consequently Section 276CC

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

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

68. Having regard to the memorandum and circular referred to above, it is by no means evident that the primary legislative object was to enact Section 44C solely for ‘common’ expenditure. In fact, the specific nature of the expenditure does not appear to be the focal point of the legislative concern. Rather, the concern was mainly with respect

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

68,546 1992-93 61,39,448 16,53,560 64,30,765 1993-94 7,21,192 NIL 7,21,192 1994-95 65,145 NIL 65,192 1995-96 3,99,023 1,32,333 3,99,023 Total 1,57,77,630 24,36,352 1,60,66,947” 5. Section

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

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

77 (1996) 222 ITR 140 Guj. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2) & ANR.) 22 that where the summary procedure under sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available for the Revenue, either

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

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

77,70,317/- on written down value of assets instead of 75% depreciation. Under the unamended Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee was entitled to claim 100% depreciation. However, after the amendment the depreciation could only be 75%. The assessee supported the returns with provisional revenue account, balance sheet as on 31.03.1991, details

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

68. In the case at hand, the show cause notice for the initiation of prosecution for the AY 2011-12 was the earliest in time and hence what falls for our determination is whether the offence under Section 276CC for the AY 2013-14 could be said to have been committed before the show cause notice for initiation

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