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

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

49,54,41,300/-. In our considered view, the ITAT has rightly followed authority in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. The Commissioner of Income Tax : 1998 2 ITR 163 SC with regard to meaning of transfer by holding that there was no transfer within the meaning of that expression contained in Section 2(47) of the Income

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

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

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

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

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

price of services they supply, i.e., renting/leasing/letting out, etc. Further, CGST is leviable on the supply of these services, resulting in tax on tax or the cascading effect of tax. Moreover, due to the denial of ITC, the assessees have to bear the tax burden. Thus, the interpretation put by revenue to clauses (c) and (d) of Section

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

price was capable of being attributable to individual assets, which is also known as item-wise earmarking. The third test is that there is a conceptual Page 15 JUDGMENT 15 difference between an undertaking and its components. Plant, machinery and dead stock are individual items of an undertaking. A business undertaking can consist of not only tangible items but also

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

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

49 Civil Appeal Nos. 856-857 of 2011 Page 2 of 57 (II). Whether the show cause notice is legal and valid under the extended limitation period as provided under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? .................................................................................. 52 (i). Was there any wilful suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty

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

Appeals are dismissed but in

price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one of work and labour. After referring to the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 28 earlier decisions of this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (1972) 29 STC 474 and the State of Madras

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

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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

49,66,247/- on the appellant as follows:- “ORDER 3 Page 4 JUDGMENT With a view to the discussion and findings recorded above (i) invoke extended period of limitation provided in first proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and determine the following amounts in terms of provisions of Section 11A and direct the assessee

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

price of shares. Therefore, in the mechanism of capital gains computation, what is relevant is not only the sale of shares but also the purchase of shares. Thus, the entire transaction of acquisition as well as sale 14 of shares, as a whole, is required to be examined, and a dissecting approach by examining only the sale of shares

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

49,119. By order dated February 29, 1992, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim of the SBI. It filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). In the meantime a press note dated March 17,1992 was issued by the Government of India in the Department of Electronics which according to SBI, directed that customs duty

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

price of the goods in the ordinary course of trade in India as on the date of the commission of the offence. Explanation 2.— For the purposes of clause (c), "relative" in relation to a person, means— (i) spouse of the person; (ii) brother or sister of the person; (iii) brother or sister of the spouse of person

M/S. UDAYANI SHIP BREAKERS LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CUSTOMS &CENTRAL EXCISE,RAJKOT

49,839.00 and has actually been paid by the importer to the exporter abroad. No other price can be taken into consideration for determining the assessable value in this case either in terms of the main definition of the term "value" given under sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act or in terms of sub-Rule

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

49. While considering as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden, the assessing officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty. 50. Once the primary burden of proof is discharged, the secondary burden of proof would shift on the assessee because the proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) is of penal nature

DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

49,228 3 Distributable surplus Rs. 1,02,420 Rs.22,902 4 Dividends that ought to Rs. 92,223 Rs. 20,612 have been declared by the company, i.e. 90% 5 Dividend declared by Nil Nil the assessee company 6 Debit balance in profit Rs. 91,472 Rs.20,508 and loss account 7 Capital reserve shown in Rs.7