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

Appeals are dismissed but in

112 (a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of Leela Ventures the show-cause notice dated 21st January, 1998/18th February 1998 valued the drawings and designs at Rs. 2,66,87,100/- being the transaction value and on that value the amount demanded under Section 28(1) of the said

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 55. The penalties shall be paid forthwith." Being aggrieved by the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, five appeals came to be registered before CEGAT. One appeal was preferred by the Company against the decision of the Commissioner holding that the goods were liable to payment of custom duty

INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (h) I impose a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on Brigadier R. Deshpande (Retd.), Vice President, Technical of M/s. Indusind Media & Communication Ltd., Mumbai under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (i) The redemption fine and penalties may be recovered by enforcing the Bank Guarantee executed

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. B.V. JEWELS AND ORS.'

The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated

112(a) of the Act. So far as issues relating to M/s B.V. Jewels are concerned, they are as follows: (1) Duty on shortage of 73730 cts. of diamonds valued at Rs. 26,29,54,490/-, the duty on which payable was Rs.12,54,80,309/-. (2) Broken diamonds of 1607.3 carats valued at Rs.6,91,139/-. (3) Confiscation

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

transfer of the CGP share and not by virtue of various clauses of SPA. In a case like the present one, where the structure has existed for a considerable length of time generating taxable revenues right from 1994 and where the court is satisfied that the transaction satisfies all the parameters of “participation in 66 investment” then in such

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(PORT) vs. M/S J.K. CORPORATION LTD

Sections 14 and 14(1A) are clear and explicit. The Rules and the Act, therefore, must be construed, having regard to the basic principles of interpretation in mind. Rule 12 of the Rules provides that the interpretative notes specified in the Schedule appended thereto would apply for construction thereof. They are statutory in nature being integral part of the Rules

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES

price of the imported goods was mis-declared in the bills of entry. 4. The goods imported by the respondents were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act. However, the importers were given an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine, which was 3 fixed, adopting the margin of profit as the basis, under 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

transfers. 40. It is no doubt true that the accrual of income does not much later depend upon its ascertainment or the accounts cast by assessee. The accounts may be made up at a much later date. That depends upon the convenience of the assessee and also upon the exigencies of the situation. The amount of the income, profits

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA vs. M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

112) ELT 479(T):- “6. The payment of $ (sic) 6,57,900 noted above in the price schedule is towards the services indicated above in the Agreement and which is a necessary concomitant to the supply of Design 23 and Engineering drawings for the gas cleaning plant made by Davy Mckee and imported by the appellants. The appellants have been

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SURAT

transferred to such other company having the same objects as the assessee, to be determined by the members of the assessee at or before the time of the dissolution or in default? by the High Court of Judicature that has or may acquire jurisdiction in the matter. The income and property of the assessee were thus liable to be applied

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 forums

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS vs. TELEVISION & COMPONENTS LTD.

112(a) of the Act ( as the redeemable value of the goods) and Rs.5 Lakh each on the Managing Director and Director of the respondent No.1. (8) The respondent No.1 and its Directors preferred an appeal before two Members of the Tribunal. (9) During the pendency of the appeal the Gujarat High Court on a Writ Application filed

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

transfer to the copy/copies any copyright or other marking on the Software or Documentation. d) not use the Software or Documentation for any other purpose than permitted in this Article 20, License or sell or in any manner alienate or part with its possession. e) not use or transfer the Software and/or the Documentation outside India without the written consent

TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Bench: Us, Has Imported Certain Equipments & Drawings & Engineering Documents From Siderugia National Of Portugal - A Government Of Portugal Undertaking. It Appears That Some Time In The Year 1981 Italimpianti, Genevo, Italy Supplied Materials, Designs & Engineering Drawings Etc. To Siderugia National Portugal (Hereinafter Snp, For Short) For Setting Up Rolling Mill Project In Portugal. The Supplies Consisted Of Equipments For Blast Furnace, Ld Converter, Steel Plant Bellet Castors, Wire Rod Mills, Torpedo Ladle Cars Etc.. However, Before The Equipments Could Be Installed, Portugal Decided To Join European Economic Community (Eec) Consequent Whereupon Portugal Could Not Have Expanded Its Steel Making Capacity. Snp Decided To Cancel Its Investment Plan & To Sell The Equipments & Materials Which Were Lying Unused

Section 112 of the Customs Act. Penalties were imposed on other noticees also. The appellant and other noticees preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta which have been disposed of by a common order. The Tribunal has held that the three contracts entered into between the seller, i.e., SNP and the appellant were in fact

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD

transfer of technology for the purpose of setting up a plant to manufacture Polyester, Polyester Filament Yarn and Polyester Staple Fiber: whereas the assessee contended that the goods so imported are covered under Sl. No.10 of the Notification No. 25/95 cus dated 16.3.1995 having ’Nil’ rate of duty: The Revenue contended that the goods fall under Sl.No

ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT V. PATEL

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

112 ITD 1 (MUM.) (SB) and contended that the Respondent, having received an amount on redemption of Stock   Appreciation   Rights   (SARs)   as   an   employee   of   the company   and   there   was   an  employer­employee   relationship subsisting at the relevant point of time, therefore, the amount received on redemption of Share Appreciation Rights must be treated   as   taxable   income   under   the   head   income

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

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant 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