ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

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

9 (2008) 4 SCC 720 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 11 of 91 and Ors. v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., Etc.10, Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.11 and State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association12. The true import of the legislative provision

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

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

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

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

9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: Page 35 of 112 Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section

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

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

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

price, again mandates that it is to be “to the extent they are incurred by the buyer”. That would clearly mean the actual cost incurred. Likewise, Clause (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 which deals with other payments again uses the expression “all other payments actually made or to be made as the condition of the sale

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

The appeal is allowed

9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent in the order of assessment, did not record his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars which were conditions precedent for initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The show cause notice also was issued

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

9 SCC 1 (5-Judge Bench) 30 restrict a provision that Parliament has intentionally couched in broad terms. Illustratively, waiver of a trading liability has been treated as taxable business income under Section 28, as held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.22 Again, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd23, this Court noted

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

price paid for the basic design and engineering, drawings, supervision of erection, commissioning, performance guarantee and technical services under Rule 4 read with Rule 9(1)(e) of the 1988 Rules. 5. Appeals by SAIL against both these orders were rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by two separate orders passed on 11th July, 2001 and 7th September

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

v)Warranty Certificate (vi) Bill of Lading Original plus three certified copies. Original plus three certified copies. (vii) Certificate that “No Commission, Rebate, Discount, Margin or Egg. & Technical Service Charge etc. from the net FOB value of the contract or over & above FOB value of the contract is payable by M/s Harnischfeger Corporation, USA to any agent.” Note:- (1) Documents

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

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

9, of the said Act; or (iii)   such   order   of   detention,   being   an   order   to which   the   provisions   of   section   12A   of   the   said   Act apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of, the first review under sub­ section (3) of that section, or on the basis of the report

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ESSAR STEEL LTD

v. Essar Gujarat Ltd., (1997) 9 SCC 738, was distinguished on facts in reaching the aforesaid conclusion. 6. Shri Neeraj Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General argued before us that the case is, on facts, covered by the judgment in Essar Gujarat’s case (supra). According to him, on a conjoint reading of the purchase order for supply of the plant

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

9 Rs.48,11,72,000.00 as against Rs.80,10,38,505.00 claimed by the assessee. 9.1. In its order dated 07.06.2007, Tribunal noted that the dispute between the parties related to the manner of computing profits of the undertaking of the assessee engaged in the business of generation of power for the purpose of relief under Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

9 In short, “the Act” 10 Tiger Global International II Holdings, Mauritius. Certificate dated 17.08.2018 mentioning the rate of income tax @ 6.05% Tiger Global International III Holdings, Mauritius. Certificate dated 17.08.2018 mentioning the rate of income tax @ 6.92% Tiger Global International IV Holdings, Mauritius. Certificate dated 17.08.2018 mentioning the rate of income tax @ 8.47% 5.7. Hence, the assessees approached