COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

87 and 88 in the Finance Act, 2022 (Act No. 6 of 2022) to amend Sections 2(34), 3 and 5 of the Act, 1962 respectively. Further, Sections 94 and 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 introduced a new Section 110AA and a validation enactment respectively. These amendments came to be challenged before this Court

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

87 ITR 83 : (Ker)16 and A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. CIT [(1975) 100 ITR 392 (AC)], in our opinion lay down the correct interpretation of the last ten words in Section 2 clause(15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement

M/S PRAGATI SILICONS PVT. LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Section XVII of the Explanatory Notes in the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System [hereinafter referred to as "Explanatory Notes"], is the ‘sole and exclusive’ use. Counsel for the appellant submits that the name plates are solely and exclusively used for motor vehicles, since all the name plates are sold to manufacturers of vehicles and nothing enters the spare

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

87 gives a clue to understanding the Section. He contended that, in the case of the present appellant, the giving effect order made by the CIT (Appeals) had not been fully worked out by the Assessing Officer as income under the four heads i.e. a) disallowance of bad debts to the extent of Rs. 68

M.J.EXPORTS LTD. vs. CUSTOMS,EX.&GOLD(CONTROL)APP.TRI

68 or for exportation under section 69. The suggestion that if an importer intends to export the imported goods, he should clear them for warehousing and then proceed in terms of section 69 cannot be accepted because that would mean that imported goods can be re-exported after being warehoused for some time even

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

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

87. While clause (a) of sub­section (1) of Section 4, as it stood before amendment, laid emphasis on normal price, clause (a) of sub­section   (1)   of   Section   4,   as   it   stands   after   amendment, speaks about  transaction value. Clause (b) of sub­section (1), both before and after the amendment, leaves it to the delegated 59 legislation to prescribe

SANDVIK ASIA LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX-I, PUNE

In the result, the appeals stand allowed

68,88,220/- and tax thereon at Rs.1,47,88,521. The appellant on 30.04.1986 received a refund of Rs.42,38,260/- and became entitled to receive interest on the refund and requested respondent No.2 to grant interest on refund under Sections 214 and 244 of the Act for the period from 01.4.1977 to 31.03.1986. Assessment Year

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

87,69,659 5,73,68,702 (-)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

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

87,100/- being the transaction value and on that value the amount demanded under Section 28(1) of the said Act was Rs. 26,68

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

87. It has to be carefully noted that the conditions precedent to the application of the provisions of Section 69A are that (i) the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles in question are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by the assessee concerned for any source of income; and (ii) that the assessee either

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

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

87,275 incurred at the head office directly in relation to the Indian branches. 4. The respondent vide notice dated 21.10.1999, was asked to explain why the expenses in question should not be subjected to the ceiling specified in Section 44C of the Act, 1961, and thus be disallowed. Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page

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.

87,930/- and tax determined at Rs.8,08,153/-, a demand notice was issued towards the tax and interest payable. 6. We may indicate, so far as A-2 is concerned, the due date for filing of return of income as per Section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1993-94 was 31.8.1993. Notice under Section

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 GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

87 ITR 421], Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. [68 ITR 200] and K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [247 ITR 178]. 8. The legal position in this regard may be summed up by reiterating that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and it is beyond

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

87, and since their principal use is with lorries, such parts and accessories are classified in this Section. (2) Parts and accessories classifiable in two or more headings of the Section. Certain parts and accessories are suitable for use on more than 15 one type of vehicle (motor cars, aircraft, motorcycles, etc.); examples of such goods include brakes

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