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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

68,742/- out of the total profits of Rs. 1,97,10,927/- at par with the direct exporter. (c) On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 25.02.2004, allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC to the tune of Rs. 1,08,96

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

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

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

96 vii. Section 4 of the Act, 1962 ...................................................................... 98 viii. Section 6 of the Act, 1962 .................................................................... 106 ix. Observations on the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Act, 1962 ..................................................................................................... 114 x. Bombay High Court decision in Sunil Gupta (supra) ........................... 123 xi. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2022 ...................................... 138 F. CONCLUSION...................................................................................... 154 Review Petition

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

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

96 and 97, the exclusion under Rule 10U(1)(d) would apply. 37 7.20. The learned Additional Solicitor General further highlighted that the deliberate use of distinct expressions in Rule 10U, namely “arrangement” in Rule 10U(1)(a) and Rule 10U(2), and “investment” in Rule 10U(1)(d), cannot be ignored. The differentiation is purposeful. Rule

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

68 has no substance." (Underlined for emphasis) The plea of the appellant is clearly untenable. The issue which was under consideration in the said case was entirely different and the sentence underlined cannot be read out of context to draw an inference that Note 1(a) related to articles which are millstones, grindstones or the like

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

96,9 20 (-) 2,43,75 0 NIL 9,21,28 0 6,77,53 0 ======= == NIL 16,80,2 00 6,51,00 0 15,000 12,43,4 70 23,31,2 00 2,43,68 0 20,87,4 50 12,58,4 70 NIL 8,28,9 80 8,28,9 80 ====== == ...13/- - 13 - On analysis

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

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

96,25,86,888.00 which resulted in net demand of Rs. 55,25,86,888.00 including interest under Section 234B of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing officer against the assessee. In the assessment order, assessing officer made several disallowances which are not the subject

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. 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. CASTROL INDIA LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-I

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

96,362.88 Nil d)25.2.1993 1.9.1992 to 31.1.1993 Rs.19,83,411.76 Nil Total Rs.71,04,159.47 2. 28.1.1994 7.1.1989 to 31.7.1991 Rs.47,59,343.40 Rs.30 lakhs Assessee preferred two appeals before the CEGAT. It was submitted that for a long time Exemption Notification dated 16.3.1976 in relation to Item no.11B and the rate of duty was nil was held applicable

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

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

96,040.00 for the above three assessment years as quantified by the assessing officer, CIT(A) enhanced and redetermined such income at Rs.68,20,854.00. 16.3. However, it would be relevant to mention that CIT(A) in the appellate order had noted that the assessee had filed its balance sheet as on 31.12.1985 while filing the return of income

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

96,20,325 3. 04.04.2019 EPCG   License   No. 5230007016   dated 17.05.2010 Rs. 53,29,072 4. 05.04.2019 EPCG   License   No. 5230007082   dated 03.06.2010 Rs. 2,05,73,402 5. 05.04.2019 EPCG   License   No. 5230006881   dated 31.03.2010 Rs. 6,64,646 3 6. 07.04.2019 EPCG   License   No. 5L32206936   dated 20.04.2010 Rs. 12,04,09,501 5 On   25.04.2019,   the   NCLT   passed

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement