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

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

153 OF 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2190 of 2021] M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD. ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – V NEW DELHI ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2188 of 2021] Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2026.01.09 16:59:31 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

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

The appeals are allowed, the judgment dated September

1) The provisions of s. 153(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the instant case. [280 C] (2) The expression "finding" and "direction" are limited in meaning. A finding given in an appeal, revision or reference arising out of an assessment must be a finding necessary for the disposal of the particular case, that

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

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

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

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1: Rational & Design (November 2015), available at , last accessed 06-07-2022. Page 28 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 31. In the Fifth Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, May, 2022 published by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India29, while examining whether the role

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

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

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

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.

1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Act) and as to why penalty should not be imposed on them and the plant & machinery and the manufactured goods should not be confiscated. Cause was shown by the appellant inter alia stating that no excise duty was payable