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

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

Section 68 of the Act. There is no dispute about the same but the assessees in no manner raised any plea that even if their explanation is not acceptable the same cannot be treated as an income in their hands. In cases where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of sums found credited

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

68   of   the   1961   Act,   as   stated   in   the assessment   order.     Indisputably,   the   Officer   gave   several opportunities to the appellant/assessee to prove the authenticity of the entries in question.  As a matter of fact, summon notices were   issued   to   the   named   fifteen   creditors,   but   no evidence/explanation was forthcoming.   The finding of fact so recorded by the Officer is unexceptionable

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

78 of 2016 65 Section 3 (2):- “ The board shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract, and may by the said name sue and be sued

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

The appeal is allowed

78. We have earlier noticed that one of the modes of computing the market value may be based on a judgment or award in respect of acquisition of similar land, subject of course to such increase or decrease thereupon as may be applicable having regard to the accepted principles laid down therefor and as may be found applicable." 59. This

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. I impose a personal penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on Shri Rajat Yadav, Partner of M/s Elegant Developers 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad, (UP) for failure to furnish required information/documents and non appearance against summons on time under Section 77(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended

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

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

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 by the assessee

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

68 came into force on the 1st September 1968. 12 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done, taken, made, given, issued, granted, adjudged, imposed or ordered, as the case may be, under the corresponding provision of this Act as if this Act had commenced on the 29th day of June

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

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. 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 CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

68 of the Act was reversed and that addition was deleted. Therefore, we are not concerned with that aspect of the mater which has attained finality. 7) Insofar as disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing

M/S.GRASIM INDS.LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,BOMBAY

78 to 81); (e) Electro-mechanical tools for working in the hand, of heading No.85.08 or electro-mechanical domestic appliances of heading No. 85.09; or (f) Hand-operated mechanical floor sweepers, not motorized (heading No. 96.03)." Chapter 84 appears in Section XVI and under the heading "Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances, parts thereof" the aforesaid exclusions

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

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

M/S. UDAYANI SHIP BREAKERS LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CUSTOMS &CENTRAL EXCISE,RAJKOT

Section 14 of the Act the imported goods are required to be assessed at the price ordinarily charged for them in the course of international trade. As pointed out hereinabove the sale price of the aforesaid vessel during the course of international trade which has actually been paid was US$ 68,49,839.00 equivalent to Rs. 24,78