RAJINDER NATH ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed, the judgment dated September

Section 153(3) (ii) is not a provision enlarging the jurisdiction of the authority or court. It is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under s. 143 or s. 144 or s. 147. [278D] Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, 52 ITR 335; N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Transfer Pricing Officer8 passed an order under Section 92CA (3) determining the Arm’s Length Price of royalty at 3 per cent and making an adjustment of Rs. 78.97 crores in respect of royalty paid by the assessee for the relevant previous year. 10 On 11 March 2016, a draft assessment order was passed in the name of Suzuki Powertrain

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Transfer Pricing Adjustment, Capitalization of Licence Fees, 3G Spectrum Fees, Asset Restoration Cost Obligation including the effect of amalgamation of group entities which required thorough scrutiny and determination. G] During the pendency of said Writ Petition, a letter was issued by the respondent No.1 on 23.07.2018, the relevant portion of which was as under :- "The assessment years for which request

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub­section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the  expiry of four years from the end of the  relevant assessment  year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped

TEA ESTATE INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

price realised over the book value of the lands as shown in the land account balance and as envisaged in the question referred or whether the excess on the sale of the entire tea estates over the book value of the assets are to be considered for inclusion in the accumulated profits under section 2(6A)(c) there

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

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 4 of the Act which is crucial for our case reads as follows: “4. Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging

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

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

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 33 of the IBC states as follows : “33. Initiation of Liquidation - (1) Where the Adjudicating Authority— (a) before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under section 56, as the case may be, does

M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act. It Undertook A Contract For Construction Of Bridges For M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (’Konkan Railway’, For Short), Which Is A Public Sector Undertaking. Appellant Manufactured Pre Stressed Concrete Girders (Psc Girders). It Used To Transport Them To The Site Of Construction Of Bridges Of The Railways. It Did Not Register Itself With The Authorities Of The Central Excise. 2. Alleging That The Appellant, For The Period March 1993 & December 1994, Although Was Involved In The Manufacturing Activity, By Undertaking Manufacture Of 75 Psc Girders, But Did Not Pay Any Excise Duty Thereupon. 3. A Notice Was Issued To The Appellant Directing It To Show Cause As To Why Central Excise Duty To The Tune Of Rs.32,35,575/- Should Not Be Demanded & Recovered From Them In Terms Of The Proviso Appended To Rule 49(1) Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules) Read With Section 11A Of The Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (Act) & As To Why Penalty Should Not Be Imposed On Them & The Plant & Machinery & The Manufactured Goods Should Not Be Confiscated. Cause Was Shown By The Appellant Inter Alia Stating That No Excise Duty Was Payable. The Said Notice Was Withdrawn Stating: "The Said Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued Without Obtaining Approval Of The Proper Authority Or By The Proper Officer. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice Dated 27.1.94 Hereby Withdrawn.

153) ELT 14 (SC)], this Court held as under: "19. However, Mr. Jaideep Gupta submits that the Tribunal did not accept that here has been assignment of logo in favour of the assessee. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The tenor of the order, ’the assessee had produced certain documents such as registration form, trade

M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

transferred the compound (kimam). The said enquiries indicated receipt of the said compound (kimam) in balties at Barotiwala during the period 16.2.1995 to 20.12.1996. Based on the above investigations carried out by the department, it appeared that the compound (kimam) was excisable and had been manufactured and cleared without http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8 obtaining

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

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

153 and all other applicable Rules, Bye-Laws and Regulations and instruc- tions of the Governing Board are complied with; (iv) Fourth - the balance, if any, shall be paid into the Fund to the extent of the money 16 paid out of the Fund (other than payments made out of Members’ refundable contributions) and not recovered by the Fund