COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) MUMBAI vs. M/S GANPATI OVERSEAS THR. ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA

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

11 of identical or similar goods could be produced. No evidence of market value was adduced. No attempt to find out the price per unit was made for a comparison. That apart, no incriminating document or material was produced to establish under valuation. There was no evidence as to how remittances over and above the invoice price were made

COMMISSIONER OF CENTAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S. MERINO PANEL PRODUCT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

price charged to independent buyers. This fulfilled the requirement of using “reasonable means” under Rule 11 while arriving at the assessable value, and was also in conformity with Section 4(1) of the CEA. Further backing for the correctness of this approach was drawn from different holdings by CESTAT Tribunals, including the aforementioned decision in Aquamall Water Solutions (Supra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, then under Section 92CA of the Act as there is an extension of the period of twenty-one months contemplated under Section 153(1) of the Act by a further period of twelve months, the total time period is increased to thirty-three months for passing an assessment order from the end of the relevant year. That

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

transferred to various Branch Sales Offices from where they are sold to the customers. The sales either from the factory or from the BSOs are in terms of purchase Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2012 & Ors. Page 3 of 29 Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 orders received from the customers. The assessee sold the rails to the Indian Railways in terms

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 MUMBAI vs. M/S S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. Civil Appeal No. 6144 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.12126 of 2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai vs. M/s. S.G. Asia Holding (I) Pvt. Ltd. 9 ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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

11 (2017) 12 SCC 1 12 (2021) 15 SCC 534 13 (1983) 1 SCC 147 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 12 of 91 transactions culminating into deliverable goods and services or both to the ultimate end-user, who is the customer. Reliance has been placed on the observations made by this Court in the case of Union

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

transferred from one company to another; depots of Shaw Wallace and DIL were in the same premises; DIL sends monthly newsletters to Shaw Wallace showing production, despatches, purpose, technical problems, quality problems, details of power consumption etc. - and Shaw Wallace fixes the price of DIL products; and unsecured loans of approximately Rs.55 lakhs were given by Shaw Wallace

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 and relied on Sri. P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1995 (1) SCALE 653 - where a Bench of three Judges of this Court had considered the mandate of the human right to shelter and read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

11 of 37 Page 12 JUDGMENT components of computer, involving little or no expenses by way of handling, whereas heavy weight items like machinery, hardware might involve substantial expenditure for loading, unloading and handling. It was submitted that the handling services are rendered by the sea port and airport authorities. The handling charges are levied on the basis of either

RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

price of the land fixed by the Collector to the land owners. From the copy of the jamabandi attached with this file, khasra Nos. 361 and 364 measuring 5 kanals and 7 marlas were not on the lease with the college. But the Management is claiming compensation for this land also. In these circumstances, the college management cannot be awarded

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

11. Interestingly, unlike under the definition of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, “sale” under the Act takes place on transfer of possession. However we 17 need not say anything further as it is not necessary for the cases at hand. Section 3 is the charging section. With effect from 1.7.2000 under the Finance Act of 2000, Section

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

prices given in "Accommodation Times" I am of the opinion and feel that the rate of the Residential Apartment in the area in 1981 would be in between Rs.2500 to Rs.3000/- per S.FT. I think that the lower value of Rs.2500 per S.FT. as fair and reasonable. This rate will be fair and reasonable for the share of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm’s length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

DY.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

price can be taken and not the entire amount. 253 Unexplained Stocks Consent decrees passed by the Supreme Court were not challenged by the appellant. 101 Unexplained money/ Deposits in Banks For an amount of Rs. 18.75 crores decree of Special Court in favour of SBI, w.r.t 64.94 and 17.77 crores Bank filing affidavit stating that the amount never transferred

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

11,75,000 pounds. This would show that the principles laid down in Royal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Stephen [(1928) 14 TC 22 : 44 TLR 630] and Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Osler (Inspector of Taxes) [(1933) 1 ITR 65 : 1932 All ER Rep 917, HL] have been affirmed by all the Law Lords and the difference amongst them was only

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

transfer as is referred to in clause (iv) or clause (v) or clause (vi) of Section 47, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner