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

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

E of the Customs Act, 1962 against the common judgment and final order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.06 16:30:34 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (briefly the ‘CESTAT’ or ‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter) in Appeal Nos. C/1347

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

13,343 in excise duty. Further, due to the purported suppression of the differential in the prices at which the goods were being sold, the extended period of limitation of 5 years was invoked under the Proviso to Section 11A(1) & (4) of the CEA.5 3 2003 SCC OnLine CEGAT 119. 4 2006 (193) ELT A197 (SC). 5 Section

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

e. Section 17(5)(c) and (d) remain vague due to the absence of definitions of the expressions “on its own account” and “plant or machinery”. The distinction between the expression “plant and machinery” used in Section 17(5)(c) and the expression “plant or machinery” used in Section 17(5)(d) has not been clarified by the Government. Therefore

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

E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. These four sets of appeals relate to the correct construction of Section 4(1)(a) proviso (iii) and Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise and Salt Act as they stood prior to the 2000 amendment of Section 4. In short, these appeals deal 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT with the definition

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

E N T Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. This Appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and final order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay dismissing Income Tax Appeal No.281 of 2016 preferred by the appellant herein and thereby confirming the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

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

price, again mandates that it is to be “to the extent they are incurred by the buyer”. That would clearly mean the actual cost incurred. Likewise, Clause (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 which deals with other payments again uses the expression “all other payments actually made or to be made as the condition of the sale

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade

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

The appeal is allowed

E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2746 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.26831 of 2004] S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant herein is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It is an HUF. For the assessment year 1998-99, an income of Rs.30,80,030/- was declared by it, inter alia, showing a long

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

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

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

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

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

13 served on the convict to require him to indicate his sources of income as noted by the Madras High Court.  More so, the convict is not expected to offer explanation with regard to the properties held by his relatives and not by him.   15. As regards the purport of Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act, it is urged

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

e) specifically provides that for capital gains, the cost of shares in the amalgamated company shall be deemed to be the cost of shares in the amalgamating company. By parity of reasoning, in the case of stock-in-trade also, the original cost must be preserved and any profit should be recognized only at the time of realisation

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

e) of the Valuation Rules and process license fee, the payment for transfer of technology under the process license agreement and whatever expenditure was needed to be incurred for dismantling the plant which was sold on “as in where is basis” in the foreign country and making it ready for delivery on board the vessel to be exported to India

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

E N T Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.12.06 17:23:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 UJJAL BHUYAN, J. There are three special leave petitions in this batch, viz., SLP (C) No.15564 of 2020, SLP (C) No.5871 of 2020 and SLP (C) No.792 of 2021. Leave in these special leave petitions are therefore granted. 2. Core issue

M/S COAL INDIA LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(PORT) KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (‘Cestat’ For Short Digitally Signed By Ashish Kondle Date: 2025.05.01 11:42:33 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

13 and M/s Voltas Limited. Various services provided by M/s Voltas Limited were on behalf of the foreign supplier as its agent. The services rendered were to identify the requirement of the spares to be imported and therefore the payments so made had a direct nexus to the imported goods. As the local agent, services provided by M/s Voltas Limited

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

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

13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(f) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Section 2(14) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 and Section 2(21) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, respectively, this Court concluded that the definition of “goods” under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 seems

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

E R S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Leave granted. The appellant (hereinafter, “Apex”) is aggrieved by a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras1, wherein the Division Bench upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 (hereinafter, “ITAT”), which in turn upheld an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)3 (hereinafter