Ghisalal Vs Dhapubai (D) By Lrs. (Supreme Court of India)- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, s. 7- Adoption by husband -This is clear from Section 7 of the Act. Proviso thereof makes it clear that a male Hindu cannot adopt except with the consent of the wife, unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. It is relevant to note that in the case of a male Hindu the consent of the wife is necessary unless the other contingency exists.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs Kit ply Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether laminated panels of particle and medium density fibre board should be classified under sub- heading no. 4406.90 and 4407.90 or under subheading no. 4408.90?
Aluva Sugar Agency Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India)-Upon perusal of the Circular dated 19th February, 1996, explaining the term “edible oil”, we find that intention of the government was to give relief in tax to edible oils. So as to clarify the doubt, it has been specifically stated in the said circular that edible oils would also include hydrogenated oils such as ground nut oil, gingerly oil, refined oil and vanaspathi oil.
esar Enterprises Ltd. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- In the present case, before imposing the impugned demand of penalty and interest, there was absolutely no adjudication by any authority as regards the breach committed by the appellant, except the allegation that the appellant had failed to furnish the PD-25 pass certified by the Collector. In our opinion, therefore, the action of the respondents for the recovery of penalty and interest, being violative of principles of natural justice, is null and void.
ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court of India)- However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the assessing officer while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
ICAI Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- The learned counsel of ICAI submitted that there are several hundred examining bodies in the country. With the aspirations of young citizens to secure seats in institutions of higher learning or to qualify for certain professions or to secure jobs, more and more persons participate in more and more examinations.
M/s M.R. Tourist Home & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether Section 7(b) of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 introduced on 24.10.2006 with retrospective effect from 1.7.2006 could be applied to those dealers who had contracted for payment of turnover tax at the compounded rate under the alternate method of taxation provided for under the un amended Section 7 for the assessment year 2006- 07?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut- II Vs. M/s. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- We have a recent decision of this Court in the case of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 601. This Court in the said decision has very carefully considered almost all the previous decisions of this Court on the issue of the levy/payment of Excise Duty Valuation on articles manufactured by the assessee company therein. After referring to practically all the decisions on the issue this Court in the aforesaid case held that the consistent view of this Court is that the marketability is an essential criteria for charging duty and that the test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges.
Air Liquid North India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)- Relabelling would not mean mere fixing of another label. When the appellant was selling different cylinders with different marking or different certificates to its different customers, we can say that the appellant was virtually giving different marks or different labels to different cylinders having different quality and quantity of gas. It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose. Thus, the treatment given by the appellant to the gas sold by it would make a different commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing activity.
CIT Vs Surya Herbal Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters.
