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

vi. Offences committed by a person for which he was convicted by a court of law under Direct Taxes laws. vii. Offences committed by a person for which complaint was filed with the competent court 12 months prior to receipt of the application for compounding. viii. Offences committed by a person whose application for 'plea-bargaining' under Chapter

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

vi)(b) read with Section 10(5) when it is quite clear that the intention of the legislature was to give it a wide meaning and that is why, articles like books and surgical instruments were expressly included in the definition of “plant”. In decided cases, the High Courts have rightly understood the meaning of the term “plant

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

Section Note 2 to Section VI, no other classification is permissible. By consideration of the materials placed on record and also applying the 'Common Parlance Test', coconut oil packed in small sachets/containers 67 understood in the market by dealers/consumers as 'Hair Oil' is classifiable under Chapter 33, tariff item 33 05. In the case of MAIPL, 'Coconut

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

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This

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

9,12,375 together with other penal liabilities, was liable to be confirmed and their appeal liable to be dismissed; 26 V. That as regards the clandestine clearances made by M/s. Wood Crafts, M/s. Uniwoods, M/s. Darvesh Plywood, M/s. National   Boards,   M/s.   National   Wood   Products,   M/s. Mailatty Wood Industries and M/s. Universal Wood Crafts Co.,   the   matter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

VI-A 80G-Donation 80HHC-profits 80-1A new industrial unit 1,500,000 6,590,600 11,322,409 1,500,000 6,590,600 11,322,409 Net Income 234,868,455 234,868,455 Tax payable Surcharge on the above at 13% 68,586,949 8,916,303 68,586,950 8,916,304 Total

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

9 that an open area of 2,000 sq. meters in the premises of the appellant having fencing and a gate with locking arrangement was approved by the customs and central excise authorities as a public bonded warehouse. Appellant vide letter dated 30.08.1989 sought permission from the Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Range-III, Pithampur for unloading the cargo covered

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

9 SCC 1. 39 the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the legislature”. The Court, while noting the nuances between ‘strict’ and ‘literal’ interpretation, held as follows: “29. …We may reiterate at the cost of repetition that strict interpretation

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

vi) Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs. 1,47,97,994.00, an amount of Rs. 67,79,982.00 ( Rs. 57,51,520.00 + Rs. 10,28,462.00 = Rs. 67, 79, 982.00) was disallowed. (vii) Therefore, the depreciation allowable was Rs. 80,18,011.00 (Rs. 1

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68,700 shares held by its sole shareholder and holding company Genpact India Investment, Mauritius, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.11.22 15:06:13 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2 the appellant bought back

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

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

vi) the trustee of any trust, where,— (a) the trust has been created by such person; or (b) the value of the assets contributed by such person   (including   the   value   of   the   assets,   if   any, contributed by him earlier) to the trust amounts, on the date on which the contribution is made, to not less than twenty per cent

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

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

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

68. Payment of Service Tax. – (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay Service Tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of "such taxable services as may be notified" by the Central Government

GVK INDS. LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act (1961) was unconstitutional on the ground that it constitutes a law with respect to objects or provocations outside the territory of India, thereby being ultra- vires the powers granted by Clause (1) of Article 245. Interpreting Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 245, Chief Justice Pathak (as he then

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA vs. M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

vi) The extent of involvement of the individual persons vis- ‘-vis evidence on record to sustain the charge of collusion on the part of the employees of notice viz. M/s. EOL and the officers of the department as detailed in the show cause notice. After considering show-cause reply filed by respondent no.1 the Commissioner Customs House, Kandla (in short

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

68, every “person” providing taxable service to any “person” 17 shall pay service tax. Section 69 provides that every “person” liable to pay the service tax….may make an application for registration. In Section 70 also, the words used are “every person liable to pay the service tax…” 8. If the submission on behalf of the respondent

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

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

68. Neither section 6 of the CGST Act nor the SGST Act nor the Circular dated October 5, 2018, therefore, apply to the fact-situation presented by the two petitions before us as they do not operate and are not intended to operate in a situation where the "intelligence based enforcement action" has repercussion or involvement of taxpayers beyond

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

vi) Private trusts ................................................................................................................................... 135 IV. Summation of conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 141 A. General test under Section 2(15) ............................................................................................................ 141 B. Authorities, corporations, or bodies established by statute .................................................................... 142 C. Statutory regulators ................................................................................................................................ 143 D. Trade promotion bodies .......................................................................................................................... 144 E. Non-statutory bodies ............................................................................................................................... 144 F. Sports associations.................................................................................................................................. 145 G. Private Trusts .......................................................................................................................................... 145 H. Application of interpretation................................................................................................................... 146 4 1. Leave granted