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

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

The appeals are allowed

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

17 of 112 the Tribunal vide Section 246A(1)(a). On the other hand, an assessment order made pursuant to the directions of the DRP is appealable under Section 253(1)(d) of the Act before the Tribunal. Thus, an assessment order made under Section 144C is also an assessment made within the meaning of Section 143(3) but appealable

M/S. MODIPON FIBRE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

transferred to its depot in Surat for sale therefrom; that in the said price declaration, the assessee had indicated variety-wise ex-depot sale price, amount of various deductions for sales tax, freight, discount, TOT, excise duty etc.; that in the price declaration, the assessee had also declared the assessable http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

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

17. In the context of amalgamation, what transpires is essentially a statutory substitution of one form of holding for another. The shareholder’s interest in the transferor company is replaced by a corresponding interest in the transferee company. For the purposes of Section 28, the first test is whether such substitution constitutes either a receipt or an accrual of income

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD.

In the result, both sets of appeals stand disposed of

17. In the aforesaid circular, three situations were envisaged, viz., (i) exemption from payment of sales tax for a particular period; (ii) deferment of payment of sales tax for a particular period; and (iii) grant of incentive equivalent to sales tax payable by the unit. The aforestated three situations had been examined by the Board in consultation with the Ministry

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

D as the basis for price escalation. The question of imposition of tax on income arising from a business connection may, thus, have to be considered keeping in view the aforementioned factual backdrop. Section 9(1)(i) of the Act states that income accruing or arising whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India shall

M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The appeals are dismissed

d) of the Act and letters issued by the appellant; took note of the decisions in Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise2, Triveni Glass Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.3 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd.4; adverted to the order of the tribunal that has not accepted the documents holding that

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

D G M E N T     R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.    1. Leave granted. 2.   These appeals are preferred, by the State­owned Undertaking, Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd., a 1 Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.01.03 16:37:04 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. company registered under the Companies

SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 6 (1) (1) BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

5 of 29 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8689 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 14973/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8690 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 14974/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8685 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 12344/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9412 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 16209/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8678 OF 2022 (Arising from

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

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

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

transfer of the differential amount. Therefore, the adjudicating authority opined that he had no reason to accept the plea of the respondents that the statements of Mr. Yashpal Sharma and Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma were not voluntary and should not be relied upon. This plea was taken only as an afterthought. 14 6.3. Contention of the respondents that the declared

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

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

5 8. However, the ITAT reversed the order passed by the CIT(A) and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee observing that the decision of this Court in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The relevant observations from the order of the ITAT order are extracted hereinbelow: “6. [...] In the present

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

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

17 of 57 foundational principles governing the levy of central excise duty under the Act, 1944. 34. It is pertinent to note that central excise duty is a duty on manufacture of goods. A Three-judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and Others reported in (1984) 1 SCC 467, while

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

17 of IBBI Liquidation Process Regulation 2016 before   the   appellant/liquidator   in   order   to   stake   claims   for distribution of proceeds of sale in consonance with Section 53 of the IBC.  The respondent authority, does a U­turn on filing such claims   and   instead,   unilaterally   decides   to   initiate   recovery proceedings under Section 72(2) of the Customs Act. Further, the Customs Authority bypasses

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

d) Copies of electricity bills received from the State Electricity Board for electricity supply to the industrial consumers. 11.6. Respondent has stated that since part of the electricity produced was captively consumed by the manufacturing units owned by it, the rate of transfer of power was recorded at the market rate i.e. the rate at which electricity was supplied

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

5 8)  Per   contra,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the Respondent   submitted   that   the   amount   received   by   the Respondent   from   redemption   of   Stock   Appreciation   Rights (SARs) can be treated only as capital gains and cannot be treated as perquisite under Section 17(2) (iii) of the IT Act or under Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act. However

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

17. The only question that falls for our determination is whether Section 4 as amended in the year 2000 makes no change to the aforesaid position. 22 Page 23 JUDGMENT 18. It can be seen that Section 4 as amended introduces the concept of “transaction value” so that on each removal of excisable goods, the “transaction value” of such goods

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

17 of 28 entirely different from the classic concept of price of goods. Full meaning has to be given to the rules and the transaction value may include many items which may not classically have been understood to be part of the sale price. The concept that it is only chattel sold as chattel, which can be regarded as goods