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 petitioner renders any services so as to incur the liability to pay service tax when entered into an agreement titled 'Consignment Stockistship Agreement'

N. K. Industries Ltd Vs. DCIT, Ahmedabad

allowance of deduction for depreciation- there is nothing to show that the machinery, namely, expellers remained idle for the entire block period.  we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal.  Hence, it is not necessary for us to go into the larger question of law regarding the connotation of the word "used" appearing in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The department could not, by issuing a circular subsequent to the notification, add a new condition to the notification thereby either restricting the scope of the exemption notification or whittle it down

Appellants, claimed the classification under tariff heading 6907.90 as unglazed tiles. It had never been their case that the goods were not tiles or that they were "other ceramic articles" referred to in the DGFT classification under sub-heading 6914.10

Validity of the proviso appended to Section 68C of the NDPS Act, 1985- PINDPS Act-  show cause why the said properties should not be held to be "illegally acquired properties" and forfeited by the Central Government under the Act. no case has been made out to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India so as to hold that the proviso amended in the year 2001 shall also apply to the present category of cases.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

Whether the satilon brand cookware sold by the appellants is an "aluminium household utensil made of aluminum" and "aluminium alloys" classifiable under Entry 5 of the First Schedule under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963  

liability to pay "purchase tax" under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on conversion of red oil into sandalwood oil- there was no consumption of red oil in the manufacture of sandalwood oil.  

When there were conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, in our view, prima facie adjustments contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) was not applicable and, therefore, consequently appellant was not liable to pay additional tax under Section 143(1A) of the 1961 Act

Whether mosquito repellants and other items fall under Entry 44(5) of Schedule III to Kerala VAT Act, 2003- The basic controversy, therefore, which arose before the High Court was whether the above items fell within the sub-Heading 3808.10.91.  In this connection, we find that Kerala VAT Act is aligned with Customs Tariff which in turn is aligned with HSN and consequently each product in question was required to be seen in the context of HSN Code and judgments based thereon

Since, the department has accepted the earlier adjudications on the same issue for part of the period, revenue cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same point for a part of the remaining period. There cannot be second proceedings raising the demand for the same period.even if ATL & ITCL are taken to be related persons, it has not influenced the price. There is no under-valuation.  

Rate of tax applicable on the sales of Bubble-gum.'Bubble-gum' is taxable as an unclassified good  

Whether the amortization loss computed under Rule 9A is subject to or not subject to the provisions of section 80 and section 139 of the Income Tax Act

Section 115WB -AAR with respect was not correct in its view in reading the words 'in India' after the word residence in sub-section (3).The interpretation of CBDT being in the realm of executive construction, should ordinarily be held to be binding, save and except where it violates any provisions of law or is contrary to any judgment rendered by the courts

"Brimstone 90" which contains about 90% of Sulphur and 10% of Bentonite by way of inert filler would come within the classification under "Heading 25.03" of the Customs Tariff and the Central Excise Tariff

Constitution Bench decision in Sunrise does not alter the position in regard to levy of tax on sale of REP licence and on that issue the three-Judge Bench decision in Vikas continues to hold the field. DEPB, like REP licence qualifies as "goods" within the meaning of the Sales Tax laws of Delhi, Kerala and Mumbai and its sale is exigible to tax.

Whether income accrued to the assessee on registration of the sale deed in favour of the third party (plot purchaser) or whether it accrued at the time of execution of the tripartite agreement?

Whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40% on trailers and loaders?

In case the investigation or assessment is not complete then the respondent whose books of accounts have been returned, he may not be asked to re-deposit the books of accounts with AO

Whether the acquisition of shares by assessee was with object of getting control over Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd and, if so, whether interest paid by the assessee to Torrent Financiers was allowable as expenditure under Section 36 (1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act?

Agreement of transfer of technology know-how and trade mark under which royalty was payable-royalty was paid by the assessee as a percentage of net selling price of the licensed goods products-whether the expenditure incurred is revenue or capital in nature- applicability of Section 35AB of the Income Tax Act

Interpretation of Section 254(2) regarding powers of the Tribunal in the matter of rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. application for rectification was made within four years- Tribunal took its own time to dispose of the application. High Court erred in holding that application could not have been entertained by Tribunal beyond four years

There was no reason for the department to reject the transaction value which is in consonance with the contract value

AIT-2008-173-SC
M/s. Seema Silk & Sarees & Anr Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors