Bad News for NDT-Delhi High Court decides to hear paternity suit against Tiwari  filed by Rohit Shekhar, who claims that he is  biological son of ND Tiwari      Haryana Assembly okays Special Economic Zone (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which seeks to provide for refund of stamp duty on registration of land collected from developers of SEZs in the state before notification of SEZ     Microsoft loses 106 million dollar Patent verdict      Sensex hits 17500 Points in early trading    FM says inflation may hit double digit in March     Authority for Advance Ruling rules the payments made to ABB Research Ltd., Zurich towards the applicant's share of the cost incurred in respect of R&D activities are not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as business income in the absence of permanent establishment in India, having regard to Art.7 of the Tax Treaty- Nor can it be subjected to tax as royalty or fees for technical services under Article 12 of the Treaty-AIT-2010-94-AAR       Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3801 and for poppy seeds 4256-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 20     No approval for procurement of service “Rental” of immovable property for office outside the Special Economic Zone/FTWZ can be given-SEZ Instruction No. 49 on Clarifications on FTWZ issues    Consolidated list of default authorized operations which can be undertaken by the developer/approved co-developer by default from the date of notification-SEZ Instruction No.50    Himachal Government hikes VAT from 4 per cent to 5 per cent on all items, except edible oils and foodgrains     Authority for Advance Ruling rules no capital gains accrued or arose at the time of conversion of partnership firm into a private limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act and therefore, notwithstanding the non-compliance with clause (d) of proviso to Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, by reason of premature transfer of shares, the said company is not liable to pay capital gains tax-AIT-2010-93-AAR      Authority for Advance Ruling rules if the purchasers are non-residents other than the applicant, the applicant is liable to pay tax in India on the amount received by it for the support services rendered through the branch office in India-AIT-2010-92 -AAR      Jurisdiction of Dispute Resolution Panel-Income Tax Order No.3           Employment of washing process in the manufacture of agglomerates etc from imported plastic waste and scrap-SEZ Instruction No.48     Haryana Government imposes surcharge ranging from 0.25 per cent to 0.7 per cent on VAT   Service Tax Notification No. 17/2010 which exempts the taxable service providing packaged or canned software, intended for single use and packed accordingly amended-Service Tax Notification No.18     Procurement, Import and Export of Prohibited and Restricted Goods by SEZ Units-SEZ Instruction No. 47     Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amounts received/receivable by Technopromexport from NTPC under contract for Offshore supply of all plant and equipment including mandatory spares are not liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and DTAA between India and Russia-AIT-2010-79-AAR  
 
Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
exchange rate
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC        CESTAT        ITAT        AAR

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS 2008 Page 1

AIT-2008-05-SC
Infosys Technologies Limited Vs CIT, Bangalore

ESOP-Estimation of TDS under Section 192 in the absence of clear provisions on valuation of "perquisite" would not justify the Department in treating the respondent as assessee in default

AIT-2008-06-SC
Suresh N. Gupta Vs CIT-II

Whether the Finance Act, 2001 was applicable to “block assessment” under Chapter XIV-B in respect of the search carried out on 17.1.2001;  whether the proviso inserted in Section 113 by the Finance Act, 2002 is clarificatory?

AIT-2008-07-SC
Mathania Fabrics Vs CCE, Jaipur

Central Excise-not entitled to  benefit of Notification No. 173/77 as part of the process was being carried out with the use of power

AIT-2008-08-SC
Nirlex Spares Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE

Printing of hexagonal design on the goods, where such hexagonal design is not owned by the Marketing Company, would not disentitle from the benefit of SSI excise exemption

AIT-2008-09-SC
Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT & Ors

Payments of service tax as also the VAT are mutually exclusive
AIT-2008-18-SC
Indian Dairy Machinery Co. Ltd. Vs ACCT		Karnataka Sales Tax Act-composition under Section 17(6)
AIT-2008-19-SC
M/s Anis Ahmad and Sons Vs CIT, Kanpur		CIT is right in holding the assessee as an Arhatiya’ (Commission Agent)  and not as ‘trader’
AIT-2008-20-SC
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs State of A.P. & Ors.		Constitutional validity of the explanation to the definition of the term ‘person’ defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987
AIT-2008-23-SC
Anil Chanana Vs Union of India		Test for Compounding of offences under Customs Act 
AIT-2008-25-SC
Videocon International Ltd. Vs SK Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer		FEMA
AIT-2008-33-SC
Mangat Ram Vs State of Haryana		High Court ought not to have disposed of the appeal without recording reasons
AIT-2008-35-SC
Biecco Lawrie Ltd Vs CC, Calcutta		Rate of duty on imported goods warehoused under Section 68 of Customs Act and subsequently cleared from the warehouse- where the goods are cleared for home consumption under Section 46, the duty payable would be as on the date the goods were cleared for home consumption.
AIT-2008-37-SC 
Phil Corporation Ltd Vs CCCE, Goa		processed cashew nuts, peanuts, almonds etc. by dry roasting, oil roasting, salting, seasoning and packing them in different containers and clearing these items under brand name is subject to excise 
AIT-2008-42-SC 
M/s Intel Design Systems (India) P. Ltd Vs CCCE		 even though used specifically solely or principally with the armoured vehicles of Chapter Heading 8710, they are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8536.90
AIT-2008-46-SC
Core Health Care Ltd Vs Deputy CIT, Ahmedabad		 interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year can be permitted as allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act
AIT-2008-47-SC
Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd Vs Deputy CIT, Baroda		 "commitment charges" can be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of  Income-tax Act-"charges" paid to COFACE is similar to payment of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, allowed as deduction
AIT-2008-50-SC
Punjab Fibres Ltd. Vs CCCE, Noida		 no power for condonation of delay in filing reference application-proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of Central Excise Act 
AIT-2008-62-SC
Munjal Sales Corporation Vs CIT, Ludhiana		whether Section 40(b) of the 1961 Act is a stand-alone section or whether it operates as a limitation to the deduction under Sections 30 to 38 of the 1961 Act? 
AIT-2008-63-SC
M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC		If the Consideration Clause indicates that the importer/buyer had adjusted the price of the imported goods  in guise of enhanced royalty or if the Department finds that the buyer had misled the Department by such pricing adjustments then the adjudicating authority would be justified in adding the royalty/licence fees payment to the price of the imported goods  
AIT-2008-64-SC
M/s WEP Peripherals Ltd Vs. CC, Chennai		there is nothing to indicate that royalty payment was a condition pre-requisite to the sale of shuttle. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the appellant had received a bulk order for which it gave a price discount. The royalty payment was not based on value. The royalty was payable at the rate of $ 50/70 per piece. In view of the law laid down by us in M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant succeeds.
AIT-2008-68-SC
White Machines Vs CCE, Delhi		Since, there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding marketability, excise duty could not be levied on the intermediary product
AIT-2008-69-SC
Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd Vs DCIT, Ujjain		dividend income derived by the assessee from a company in Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Act
AIT-2008-70-SC
M/s. Goa Carbon Ltd Vs. CTT		transaction of transfer of the right to use was a local sale under Section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 
AIT-2008-71-SC
M/s Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd Vs CIT Chennai		Every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. It is only in those cases where the Department records a finding that the method adopted by the assessee results in distortion of profits, the Department can insist on substitution of the existing method. 
AIT-2008-72-SC
M/s. Scan Synthetics Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur		 assessable value of the captively consumed grey yarn would be on the basis of the price at which the grey yarn was sold by the assessee to unrelated buyers in wholesale at the factory gate
AIT-2008-75-SC
M/s. Vinayaga Body Building Indus. Ltd Vs. CCE		 manufacturers of chassis in their invoices placed the said goods under Sub-Heading 8706.29. Appellant, however, classified the said motor cabs under Sub-Heading 8702.90 which has been specified for payment of National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) at one per cent for period 1.03.2003 to 30.09.2003.  duty was not paid
AIT-2008-76-SC
M/s. Lohia Sheet Products Vs. CC, New Delhi		 scrap imported by the appellants is chargeable to 'NIL' rate of additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975
AIT-2008-77-SC
M/s Bharjatiya Steel Industries Vs. CST, U.P.		 Sales Tax-9.47% of total amount of scrap purchased could not be utilized by it.  It sold the said goods to other dealers at a concessional rate of tax. appellant for the purpose of obtaining tax concession in terms of Section 4-B(2) of the Act furnished an undertaking to utilize the entire material for manufacturing purposes, which was breached by reason of said transfer, a proceeding for levy of penalty was initiated
AIT-2008-78-SC
Rexnord Electronics and Controls Ltd Vs. UOI		 Customs-Interpretation of the provisions of Section 127A read with Section 127H of the Customs Act
AIT-2008-82-SC
Geo Tech Foundations & Construction Vs CCE, Pune		As the facts alleged to have been suppressed were known to the department,Invocation of Section 11-A, was impermissible 
AIT-2008-83-SC
Dugar Tetenal India Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur		brand name "Tetenal" belonged to M/s Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany-the assessee was not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification
AIT-2008-84-SC
MMK Jewellers & Another Vs CC, Mumbai		 in case where assessees are not guilty of suppression of facts, collusion or wilful misstatement of facts, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked under proviso to section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962
AIT-2008-85-SC
E. Micheal Raj Vs Intelligence Officer, NCB		 narcotic drug found in possession is 60 gms.The quantity of 60 gms. is lesser than the commercial quantity, but greater than the small quantity and, thus, the appellant would be punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act
AIT-2008-86-SC
Orient Traders Vs. CTO, Tirupati		 exemption notifications are to be construed strictly. If the intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, then it is not open to the courts to add words in  exemption notification to extend the benefit to other items which do not find mention in notification. Intention of State Government is clear that only gold bullion and specie is entitled to concessional rate of tax- same cannot be extended to silver
AIT-2008-87-SC
M/s. Perfect Synthetics Vs State of Punjab 		 Whether assessee is entitled to deduction, from gross turnover, the purchase value of raw-material which assessee bought from exempted units? the words "subjected to tax" cannot be equated to the words "having suffered tax"
AIT-2008-88-SC
M/s Samtel India Ltd Vs State of Haryana		 whether respondent was entitled to addition of Colour Monitors in eligibility certificate entitling it to sales tax exemption under rule 28A of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules for manufacture of monochrome monitors& black and white TV sets?
AIT-2008-91-SC
Xpro India Ltd Vs. CIT		 Whether High Court was right in allowing credit for MAT, u/s. 115 JAA   before charging interest U/S 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act
AIT-2008-92-SC
Kraftech Products Inc Vs CCE, Vapi		MRP valuation under Section 4A of Central Excise Act on "multi piece package"

SC-2008 Page 2    SC-2008 Page 3     SC-2008 Main Page

HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources

  

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments