Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Supreme Court of India

Levy of penalty U/s. 11AC is a mandatory penalty & there is no scope for any discretion: SC

September 29, 2008 4601 Views 0 comment Print

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors – The Explanations appended to Section 272(1)(c) of the IT Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return.

Sec 234A Interest cannot be levied on delayed ROI if SA tax is paid before due date

September 17, 2008 17007 Views 0 comment Print

Since the tax due had already been paid which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy of interest Under Section 234A does not arise.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Sales Tax Officer (Supreme Court)

August 9, 2008 1981 Views 0 comment Print

A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority.

SC judgment on insertion of proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi)

May 9, 2008 3635 Views 0 comment Print

In American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute vs. CBDT 2008 (301) ITR 86 SC, the Supreme Court analysed the provision and found that the second proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) lays down the powers and duties of the prescribed authority for vetting an application for approval and that the prescribed

Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. Vs UOI (Supreme Court)

April 24, 2008 3428 Views 0 comment Print

Whether oil rigs engaged in operations in the exclusive economic zone/ continental shelf of India, falling outside the territorial waters of India, are foreign going vessels as defined by Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962, and are entitled to consume imported stores thereon without payment of customs duty in terms of Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962?

Whether the scrap imported by the appellants is chargeable to ‘NIL’ rate of additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975

March 28, 2008 307 Views 0 comment Print

Tribunal has rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and held that the appellants had not satisfied the conditions for availing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23rd July 1996 on the ground that the copper waste and scrap used by the appellants had been imported and had not been generated in the factory of production.

Intel Design Systems (India) P. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Supreme Court)

March 11, 2008 2131 Views 0 comment Print

As per the Explanatory Notes to HSN the parts falling under Chapter Heading 8710 would be covered under the said chapter, provided they fulfill both the conditions i.e. they must be identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally for such vehicles and that they must not be excluded by the provisions of Notes to Section XVII. The identifiable parts under the said heading bodies of armoured vehicles and parts thereof, cover special road wheels for armoured cars, propulsion wheels for tanks, tracts etc.

Whether the adjudicating authority entitled to load royalty/licence fee payment on to the price of the imported goods, viz, the shuttle(s) by taking its peak price?

February 21, 2008 243 Views 0 comment Print

WEP Peripherals Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Supreme Court)- The only question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether the adjudicating authority was entitled to load the royalty/licence fee payment on to the price of the imported goods, viz, the shuttle(s) by taking its peak price. In the present case, the importer/buyer used to negotiate with the foreign supplier on quarterly basis.

No disallowance for interest free advance given to sister concern out of own funds

February 19, 2008 5895 Views 0 comment Print

the assessee advanced interest free loan to its sister concern amounting to Rs.5 lacs. According to the Tribunal, there was nothing on record to show that the loans were given to the sister concern by the assessee-firm out of its Own Funds and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Munjal Sales Corporation Vs.CIT (Supreme Court)

Validity of sale agreement executed on two stamp papers purchased on different dates and more than six months prior to date of execution

February 19, 2008 9303 Views 0 comment Print

Civil – Specific performance – Validity of – Stamp paper – Opinion of experts – Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 – Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Plaintiff-Appellant alleged that the First Defendant agreed to sell suit property by an agreement and received some amount as advance – Plaintiff issued a notice to execute the sale deed and receive the balance amount – Defendant denied the agreement and executed the sale deed in favour of Second Defendant – Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance – Defendant contended that the sale agreement put forth by the Plaintiff was forged and concocted – Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale put forth by Plaintiff was false –

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930