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

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

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

price cannot be considered as the ‘transaction value’ for the purpose of determining the payable central excise duty on the boiler, which in turn would also mean that the value of the bought out goods is not liable to be included in the value of the boiler for computing central excise duty. (ii). Whether the resultant final product

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Sections 44-BB, 44-BBA, etc.). 36. Under the impugned ruling delivered by AAR, remuneration to MSAS was justified by a transfer pricing analysis and, therefore, no further income could be attributed to the PE (MSAS). In other words, the said ruling equates an arm’s length analysis (ALA) with attribution of profits. It holds that once a transfer pricing

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

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

price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of Section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of Section 32 because in spite of its being

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. MADURAI MILLS CO. LIMITED

57,858, Rs. 1,41,739 and Rs. 1,83,175 in respect of Indian Mills Company (Private) Limited, Harveys (Private) Limited and Pandyan Weaving Mills (Private) Limited respectively. The revenue took the view that by reason of the distribution of assets of the three private companies under liquidation by the liquidators, there had ’been a capital gain

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section contemplates that any surplus accruing on transfer of capital assets is chargeable to tax in the previous year in which transfer took place. In this case, transfer took place on July 18, 1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

57 I.T.R. Page 306,   in   the   case   of C.I.T.   Andhra Pradesh v. Cocanada   Radhaswami   Bank Limited, that income from securities can also come   under   section   28   as   income   from business. This judgment is very important. It analyzes the judgment of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank's case reported in 53 I.T.R. page 250, which has been followed

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(PORT) vs. M/S J.K. CORPORATION LTD

Sections 14 and 14(1A) are clear and explicit. The Rules and the Act, therefore, must be construed, having regard to the basic principles of interpretation in mind. Rule 12 of the Rules provides that the interpretative notes specified in the Schedule appended thereto would apply for construction thereof. They are statutory in nature being integral part of the Rules

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

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA vs. M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

57,900 noted above in the price schedule is towards the services indicated above in the Agreement and which is a necessary concomitant to the supply of Design 23 and Engineering drawings for the gas cleaning plant made by Davy Mckee and imported by the appellants. The appellants have been entrusted with the setting up of gas cleaning plant

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

Section   2(22)(e) of   the Customs Act. What was transferred was technical advice on information   technology.   But   the   moment   the   information   or advice is put on a media, whether paper or diskettes or any other thing, the supply is of a chattel. It is in respect of the drawings,   designs,   etc.   which   are   received   that   payment   is made

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

transfer and, therefore, they adopted the rate of 8 per cent of the cost price for purposes of reversal of credit on inputs on which credit was taken. In this connection, the assessee applied rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (for short, "Valuation Rules 1975"). According to the Department, the assessee should have taken into

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

57,380.79 5.6. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Indian tax authorities by filing applications under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 19619, seeking certification of nil withholding prior to consummation of the transfer. By notices dated 17.08.2018, the tax authorities informed that the assessees would not be eligible to avail the benefits under the DTAA on the ground that

ASSOCIATED POWER CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the identical question referred to us in

57 I.T.R.521. This was a case that related to the Consumers’ Rebate Reserve. The Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd., the assessee in that case, claimed deduction of the amount credited to this reserve from its taxable income. This Court noted the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act and its Sixth Schedule and observed that their object was to statutorily rationalize

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

price. It is undoubtedly the case of the appellant that the SLP carried against the said judgment has been dismissed. We notice that this Court has given no reasons while dismissing the SLP. 25. In India Carbon Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Assam 1997 (6) SCC 479 there was delay in payment of central sale tax. The appellants were called