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

43) ELT 401 (Bom) in Dawn Apparels Limited, the price charged by the subsidiary company to the holding company is not rejectable merely on the ground of such relationship of subsidiary and principal in the absence of any evidence of low price having been charged or any favourable treatment accorded. In the present case, the Department has not produced

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

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm’s length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

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

TURNER MORRISON & CO., LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,.WEST BENGAL

43 of the Indian Income-tax Act and assessed them to income-tax for the two assessment years mentioned above under section 4 (1) (a) or, alternatively, under the first part of section 4 (1) (c). They were also assessed to excess profits tax for the four chargeable accounting periods herein before mentioned. Turner Morrison & Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred

SAHARANPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ETC.ETC

transfer 124 of the asset and will not be a wobbling or fluctuating one. [138G-H, 139A] 5.6 There is no difficulty or anomaly resulting from the Revenue’s interpretation in the Calculation of assessable profits under Section 41(2) or the allowances under Section 32(1)(iii). [139B, E] Birmingham Corporation v. Barnes [1935] 3 I.T.R. Supp

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

SIDDHARTHA TUBES LTD. vs. COMNR.OF CUTSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE,.M.P

The appeals are partly allowed, with no order as to costs

transferred to the galvanizing section and since it was not disputed that black pipes were in fully finished forms, and that, they were cleared from tube mill section on payment of duty, the cost of galvanization was not includible in the assessable value. According to the learned counsel, as soon as manufacture of m.s. pipes became complete, the product became

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

THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD., CALICUT, KERALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA II, ERNAKULAM

transfer of capital asset and the cost of any improvement thereon are not the subject of any controversy in the case before us. Section 49 is not applicable as the capital asset was not acquired by any of the modes mentioned in that section. Coming to Section 50 it states, in so far as it relevant, that when depreciation

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

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

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

43. Applying the foundational principles set out hereinabove, it is clear that the ‘transaction value’ under Section 4 of the Act, 1944, merely serves as the basis for computing the quantum of excise duty payable, but cannot determine excisability. It must necessarily be borne in mind that valuation is a consequence of levy, not its determinant. Accordingly, the correct sequence

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

43,31,003/- (Rs. Two Crores Forty Three Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Three only), upon them under Rule 173Q and 9(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (iv) I order recovery of appropriate interest from them under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.” 6. On appeal

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

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

price lower than the cost. The appellant was found to be the owner of the bitumen and the addition was sustained. This order was passed on 05.03.2009. 15. Thereupon, the appellant filed Review Petition No. 102 of 2009. The appellant purported to point out that in separate appeals filed for assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the same

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

transfer of technology agreement between the two parties and thus cannot but be termed to be a "technical know-how in the shape of drawings, designs, charts, plans and other literature" \026 these items have been ascribed to be a part of the plant for the purposes of depreciation allowance in terms of Sections 32 and 43

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 MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

price for the auction was fixed at Rs.30 crores, as mentioned in the order of 14th June, 1991 passed by the High Court. According to learned counsel for the Revenue, MGBW was already the owner of the trademarks, copyrights and technical know-how and essentially the rights in the intellectual property might be included in goodwill, but these were

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of dividend, bonus, or otherwise by way of profit, to persons, who at any time are or had been members of the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter “ITAT”) after initial remand to the Appellate Commissioner, held that “the primary purpose for which the assessee was established was to promote commerce and trade