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

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

26 of 29 comparable transactions are considered as comparable transactions or not. Therefore, the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Softbrands India (P) Ltd. that in the transfer pricing matters, the determination of the arm’s length price by the Tribunal is final and cannot be subject matter of scrutiny under Section

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

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

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

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

26) of the General Clauses Act. “immovable property” shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. “immovable property” does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass. Civil Appeal Nos. 856-857 of 2011 Page

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

26 empowered to compute profits and gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit. Referring to the explanation below the proviso to sub- section (8) of Section 80 IA, he submits that the market value as contemplated in sub-section (8) would mean the price that such goods would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market

ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated 22nd February, 2006, has specifically held that whatever is paid under various agreements between the US companies and the Indian company are on arm’s length pricing and that, this being the case, even if a fixed place PE is found, 15 once arm’s length price is paid, the US companies

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S. FERODO INDIA PVT. LTD

Section 14(1) of the 1962 Act and on the basis of data available in India. To the great extent possible, this method is based on previously determined values and methods with a reasonable degree of flexibility in their application. Basis of CVR, 1988 12. Article 7 of GATT, 1994 is the foundation of the CVR, 1988. The said Article

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

26. It includes a person who is allowed to take or retain possession of any building or part thereof, in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53(A)of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court distinguished Jodha Mal (supra). This Court further referred to in great detail the judgment of the Patna High

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

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

26) On the aforesaid examination of the scheme contained in the Act as well as in the Rules to arrive at the valuation of the goods, it becomes clear that wherever actual cost of the goods or the services is available, that would be the determinative factor. Only in the absence of actual cost, fictionalised cost is to be adopted

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

Section 28(1) of the said Act was Rs. 26,68,310/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellants sent their replies, inter-alia, submitting that what was imported were not goods and there could be no excise duty on services since the remittances were in Form A-2 and tax at source under the Income

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

transfer.” 19) Second submission of the learned senior counsel for the assessees pertained to the payment of tax on the income which the business earned from April 01, 1994 till November 20, 1994. The learned counsel argued that as per the orders of the High Court in the winding up petition, 40% of this income was retained

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

price of goods and shown separately in the invoices for such goods. Interestingly, despite the substituted Section 4 not providing for a depot or other premises as a place of removal, Rule 7 deals with the normal transaction value of goods transferred to a depot or other premises which is said to be at or about the same time

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

26 September 2013, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) to the amalgamating company. 9 On 22 January 2016, the Transfer Pricing

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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

transfers, the appellant filed declarations under Rule 173C with the excise department. In these declarations, the appellant claimed deduction towards Sales Tax, Cash Discount and Volume Discount on excise duty payable to arrive at the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 3. Apart from undertaking manufacturing activities, the appellant at times also receives

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

Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Customs Valuation Rules have been framed. Rule 4 deals with transaction value. The transaction value of the imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transfer of goods solely to related parties; iv) The show cause notice by the Revenue sought to assess the value of the goods by relying on Rule 11 of the CEVR, read with Rule 4 and Section 4(1)(a) of the CEA. This was contrary to the CBEC Circular and rendered the notice defective and unenforceable; v) Consequently

M/S. D.J. MALPANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

26 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 3. Initially, the Adjudicating Authority held that the Dharmada component was not part of the trading receipts and could not be included in the assessable value and dropped the demand for excise duty and the penalty. 4. However, another show cause notice dated 3.8.2001 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad under