PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SIMLA

In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed

cash was deposited by a purchaser in respect of a contract of purchase at the time it was made and was to be applied when the goods had been delivered by the appellant under that contract towards the price payable in respect of them, such price not being payable in any other manner. The arrangement for the second part

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

transferred a sum of Rs. 6 crores on 01.06.2016 and Rs. 4 crores on 21.06.2016 to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd. The assessee secured the loan by way of a mortgage of the property forming part of Survey No. 31/1-A situated in Village Bambolim, Distt. North Goa. It is an admitted fact that the assessee became the Director

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

cash payment thus eliminating the interest involved in wholesale price 11 Page 12 JUDGMENT which gives credit to the wholesale buyer for a period of time and that the price has to be fixed for delivery at the factory gate thereby eliminating freight, octroi and other charges involved in the transport of the articles.” [at para

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD

Appeal stands allowed

cash price and why prices charges by M/s AGIL to its dealers should not be approved in terms of section 4(a) of the said Act. On 13.12.1974 the Department confirmed the show cause notice and directed NIIL to pay excise duty on the prices charges by M/s AGIL to its dealers. In pursuance of the said order, a notice

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

cash deposit furnished by them towards penalty and direct the Department to invoke the Bank Guarantee furnished by them immediately. The balance amount shall be paid by M/s. M.J. Exports separately in terms of the bond furnished by them". The appellant preferred an appeal to the Central Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (’the Tribunal’) which, by an order dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. SRI MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. & ORS

cash or in kind. If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the section lays it down that the interest shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising within the taxable territories. This section was the subject-matter of interpretation by the Federal Court in A. H. Wadia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay(2) It was held

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ADANI GAS LTD

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

cash deposit is required to be maintained by the buyer equivalent to the DCQ16 multiplied by thirty and by the contract price. If the seller draws upon the payment security, the buyer has to make good the amount withdrawn. Clause 14 of the Agreement further provides for the representations and warranties of the buyer and seller. Clause 14.3 reads

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

deposited funds at somewhat higher rates of interest. But the Banker has always to keep enough cash or easily realisable securities to meet any probable demand by the depositors. No   doubt   there   will   generally   be   loans   to persons   of   undoubted   solvency   which   can quickly   be   called   in,   but   it   may   be   very undesirable   to   use   this   second   line   of defence

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD.

In the result, both sets of appeals stand disposed of

cash incentive equivalent to the amount of sales tax payable and instead of the case incentive being paid to the manufacturer, is credited to State Government account as payment towards sales tax by the manufacturer. In such a situation sales tax is also considered payable by the assessee within the meaning of the provisions of Section

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

deposited either with payment of duty, or from which such excisable goods are to be sold after clearance from a factory. In fact, Section 4(2) pre-2000 made it clear that where the price of excisable goods for delivery at the place of removal is not known, and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price

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

deposit GST on rent without deducting ITC because of the exception carved out by Section 17(5)(d). 3. The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa seeking a declaration that Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the Orissa Goods and Services Act, 2017 do not apply

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUGNEERAM BANGUR & CO

Deposits for purchase of land ........ 53,500 0 0 7. Advance paid to pleaders solicitors, contractors’ staff and other outstanding ............ 1,83,622 3 6 8. Cash in Bank ............ 71,800 1 8 ---------------- 36,21,029 0 9 Less liabilities .. 1,21,729 0 9 ------------------ 34,99,300 0 0 614 The consideration of Rs. 34,99,300 was paid

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Price Waterhouse: (1997) 93 Taxman 588, the learned counsel has argued that when the words are clear and there is no obscurity, the intention of legislature has to be inferred only from the words used in the provision. 17 10.2.2. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act remains limited

PINGLE INDUSTRIES LTD., SECUNDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal fails, and will be dismissed with

deposit thereof, and it was treated as an expenditure of a capital nature. In the Stow Bardolph case(,), the finding was that sand and gravel had to be won, and it was held that they could not be treated as stock-in-trade till they were actually won. The doubt expressed by Lord Evershed was that if the taking

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

prices to members. 22. Act as an agent in collection of premium of LIC, rent of electricity board, telecom and other public sector undertakings. 23. To associate more people to the cooperative institutions by organising cooperative education and campaigns. 24.To borrow funds from District Cooperative Banks, Govt and other institutions approved by Registrar. 25. To render services like collection

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB vs. R. D. AGGARWAL & COMPANY

price. By letter dated March 24, 1951 the assessees were appointed "sole agents" for the Italian Company "for sale" of worsted woollen yarns in the Indian territories terminable by one month’s notice. The assessees had to "maintain the existing customers" and to secure new customers "conforming to their general terms of sales", and were to receive 21 per cent

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rate of ten percent” 29. It is in this context that this Court referred to the judgment in GE Technology (supra) (see paragraph 16) and distinguished the same, stating: “16.1 The submission that unless permission was obtained

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

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

Transfer of Property Act, a carrier who clings on to possession not only without having a shadow of a right, but what is more, both contrary to the contract as also the law cannot be found to be the owner. The possession of the carrier who deliberately refuses to act under the contract but contrary to it, is not only