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

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

81,68,516/- under Section 36(1)(vii) being Provision for NPA in terms of RBI Directions 1998 on the ground

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

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

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

81,152 under Section 11AC read with Rule 25, (v) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Rule 173Q/ Rule 25 (vi) imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 under Rule 2019/ Rule 26, and (v) imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 on Sh. P. M. A. Razak, the Managing Director of the assessee

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

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

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

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 are provided

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

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

81 and 82 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. However, benami transactions came to be misused for the concealment of ownership, evasion of public revenues, and defeating creditors’ claims. In 1976, the Parliament attempted to address the issue through the introduction of Section 281A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, which barred the institution of suits in respect

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

81,379/- (Rupees Ten Crore Twenty-Eight Lakh Eighty-One Thousand Three 12 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 Hundred Seventy-Nine Only) for the period from 1st October, 2004, to 31st March, 2007, may not be charged and recovered from the respondent under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice

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

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

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

68 to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). …” 34. Section 24(1) incidentally provided for a notice of assessment save as it was otherwise provided in Section

M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid

68,177/- for the assessment year 2005-06 from the seized amount of Rs.1,81,91,982/- and to release the balance. On 29.11.2005 appellants Nos.1 and 3 moved an application under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs.3.675 10 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.12,81,724/-. The long term capital gain was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

68,402/- proposed in SCN for period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2008 (Impugned Order at pg. 22 of Paperbook Vol I) OIO confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,56,05,193/- for the period April Category III Business Auxiliary Services: Section 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 – marketing and distributing (Impugned Order at pg. 20 of Paperbook

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

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