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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue, and examined the material on record. 8.1. The issue which arises for determination is whether the Respondent / Assessee had discharged the primary onus to 15 establish the genuineness of the transaction required under Section 68

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION) vs. COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX NEW DELHI

Bench: The Tribunal Arose From An Order Dated 1 August 2013 Of The Commissioner (Adjudication) Which Dealt With Five Show Cause Notices Dated 20 October 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 April 2011, 23 March 2012 & 23 April 2013. The First Of The Five Show Cause Notices Invoked The Extended Period Of Limitation.

8 the provisions of the circular dated 23 August 2007 which specifies the requirement that the service provider and the person whose service is provided must be governed by an employer-employee relationship in order for the provisions of Section 65(68

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD

8. In the Budget for the year 1998-99, Basic Customs Duty and Special Customs Duty was levied on SKO @ 30% and 2% ad valorem respectively. Thereafter, the Customs Authority (the \021appellant\022 hereinafter) withheld the clearance of SKO from the said tank on the contention that the respondent was required to pay Basic and Special Customs Duty

M/S BISCO LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

8 become very sluggish. As a result, the trailers carrying the consignment could not enter the notified warehouse. The goods were downloaded in the open outside the notified warehouse but within the factory premises. To prevent the goods from getting damaged, appellant had requested the concerned Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise to shift the machineries to under a shed

INDUSTRIAL DEV.BANK OF INDIA THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26th

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

8. We have gone through both the judgments afore- referred to very carefully and minutely and have heard learned counsel on the conflicting decisions. There are wide ranging discussions in the interpretative process relating to the word ‘due’ occurring in the earlier part of the provision and the words ‘due and payable’ in the later part, and whether they

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions. For the assessment year under consideration assessee claimed deduction towards expenses aggregating to Rs.2,12,05,459/- which included interest on borrowings of Rs.1,56,76,000/-. During the assessment year under consideration assessee had installed new machinery. The A.O. vide assessment order dated

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

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

8 14. I have referred to these provisions as the impugned order covers periods embraced by Section 66 and 66B. 15. The next provision to bear in mind Section 67. Section 67 deals with valuation of taxable service for charging. It reads as follows: ”67. Valuation of taxable services for charging Service Tax. - (1) Subject

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

68,015 21,85,604 8,64,500 A. Rajendran 15,62,500 R. Mohanakala 15,62,500 8,72,978 36,34,627 101,41,098 32,79,000 In all the aggregate gifts received by the assessees is to the extent of Rs. 1,79,27,703/-. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation offered

M/S. SNEH ENTERPRISES vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

8) was inserted stating the provisions of the Customs Act would be applicable "relating to, the date for determination of rate of duty, non-levy, short levy, refunds, interest, appeals, offences and penalties" in respect of anti-dumping duty. Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under : "15. Date for determination

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

The appeal is dismissed with costs

8. The period for which the service tax was due is August 1998 to September 2002. Under the agreement, indisputably, the appellant was responsible to make payment of the service tax on behalf of the foreign company. 9. Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides for levy of service tax on the services specified therein. Section

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

Appeal is allowed and the

8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 in Nilgiri\022s case and the language of section 35(1)(B) of the Income Tax in the present case. The difference is that the term \021processing\022 which has been specifically incorporated in Nilgiri\022s case has been specifically omitted in the present case. Similarly, in Chowgule\022s case

RAJASTHAN R.S.S. & GINNING MILLS FED.LTD vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

The appeal is dismissed

68,39,504/-, carried forward, so that the same could be set off against the profits of the appellant society under the provisions of Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessing officer negatived the appellant’s claim for the reason that the said societies were not in existence after their

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

68   of   the   1961   Act.     The appellant/assessee adopted a three­pronged plea in support of the   above   contention;   First,   that   assessment   order   refers   to Section 145(2) of the 1961 Act.  It should have mentioned Section 145(3) of the 1961 Act.  For that, the appellant/assessee relies on the  amendment  of   the   1961   Act  which  came   into  effect  from

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

8. The effect of the stand of the Department is as follows: 13 In Titan’s case, the assessee files its returns for assessment year 2001-02. The total income declared in the return was `23,48,68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section

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

Appeals are allowed

68 cannot said to have been excluded for regular assessments." [ Emphasis supplied ] Sections 132 to 132B of the Act embody an integrated scheme laying down the procedure comprehensively for search and seizure and the power of the authorities making the search and seizure to order the confiscation of the assets seized. Section 132A gives power to the authorities