Whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act is clarificatory and/or curative in nature. As the said proviso was introduced with effect from 1.6.2002, i.e. with prospective effect and by reason thereof, tax chargeable under Section 135 of the Income Tax Act is to be increased by surcharge levied by a Central Act, the matter be considered by a larger Bench

The assessee was not under statutory obligation under Income Tax Act, 1961, and/or the Rules to collect evidence to show that its employee(s) had actually utilized the amount(s) paid towards Leave Travel Concession(s)/Conveyance Allowance

Computation of the undisclosed income under Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the block period -the Settlement Commission had erred in disallowing the application of the assessee for set off of inter se losses and depreciation accruing in any of the previous year in the block period against the income returned/assessed in any other previous year in the block period.

The question in regard to the jurisdictional issue, may be determined by the authority concerned
the petitioner shall be entitled to question the decision of the authority on the preliminary issue before the High Court, in the event the same is decided against it. The question of law to that extent shall remain open. We are sure that the decision of the authority shall be based on the interpretation of the agreement in question and in accordance with law

It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a license to the forum/authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. Where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizens' faith in the impartiality of public administration, interim relief can be given.

Rule 11 of Customs Valuation Rules also provide that in case of dispute between importer and the officer of the Customs valuing the goods it shall be resolved consistent with the provisions contained in sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act.
It has to be kept in mind that once nature of goods has been mis-declared, the value declared on the imported goods becomes unacceptable. It does not in any way affect the legal position that the burden is on the Customs Authorities to establish the case of mis-declaration of goods or valuation or that the declared price did not reflect the true transaction value.

Interpretation of an exemption notification bearing No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.03.2006
We, as noticed hereinbefore, have no quarrel with the proposition that exemption notification should be construed strictly which means that benefit thereof should not be granted to one, who is not entitled therefor. But it is also true that those who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived therefrom by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby

The finding shows that the transaction had not been proved by the assessee. In the circumstances, there is no question of the matter being remitted, as prayed for. Consequently, the AO was right in coming to the conclusion that transaction dated 15.3.1991 was not proved and that the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation of Rs. 30,17,122/- in respect of the second transaction

What is the meaning of the expression "depreciation actually allowed" in Section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act (as it stood at the relevant time)? How is the depreciation to be computed in cases falling under Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which deals with taxability of composite income?
this Court has clearly laid down the meaning of the words "actually allowed" in Section 43(6)(b) to mean - "limited to depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e. debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee"

Whether the ITAT was right in law in confirming the CIT (A)'s order directing not to levy surcharge on the tax worked out on the undisclosed income as the case pertains to a search conducted period to 1.6.2002

Whether, during the period in question, Photocopying Machines (Photocopiers) were "freely importable" or whether its import required a licence/permission/certificate.
Import of photocopying machines are expressly restricted only by Notification no. 31 dated 19.10.2005. This itself indicates that categorization/re-categorization cannot be done by policy circulars. Such exercise has to be undertaken by specific amendment to the Policy vide Section 5 of the 1992 Act. In this case, Notification no. 31 dated 19.10.2005 indicates that the Central Government has brought in photocopying machines into the category of second-hand goods vide amendatory Notification, therefore, import of photocopying machines stand restricted only on and after 19.10.2005.

Vitamin A, Vitamin D and Vitamin E etc. were undoubtedly bought out items. They were undoubtedly marketable. These vitamins were converted into a recipe which according to the assessee was not marketable and, therefore, Note 11 is not applicable.
extended period of limitation is applicable only when there is some positive act other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer. There must be conscious or deliberate withholding of information by the manufacturer to invoke larger period of limitation

Larger Bench: Whether Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and similar provision contained in other State legislations by which first charge has been created on the property of the dealer or such other person, who is liable to pay sales tax etc., are inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for recovery of `debt' and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for enforcement of `security interest' and whether by virtue of non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act, two Central legislations will have primacy over State legislations
statutory first charge created in favour of the State under Section 26B of the Kerala Act has primacy over the right of the bank to recover its dues.
However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the banks from realising their dues by taking recourse to other proceedings, as may be permissible under law

taking of delivery in Delhi by the purchasing dealers for their assigned territories outside Delhi per se would not take away the transactions in question from the category of inter-State sales.

Larger Bench: Whether 'freight' and 'insurance charges' constitute the value of the goods for the purpose of computation of Excise Duty in terms of Central Excise Act, 1944  and the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000
the amount claimed by way of transportation charges and insurance cannot be considered for determining the value of the electric meters supplied

whether foreign exchange earned by transfer of feature film rights for exploitation outside India, in the form of lease, is entitled to the benefit of Section 80HHC deduction whether such "rights" are goods/merchandise

similar goods manufactured in India and sold by other dealer like Samsung, LG etc. in Tamil Nadu are being taxed at 12% after 27.03.2002. However, the petitioners (assessee) herein alone are now required to pay tax at 20%. Presently, the Act imposes a higher rate of 20% on sales tax whereas other similar goods suffer sales tax at 12% -Liability of sales tax on imported goods transferred to warehouses

Export Sales were not included in the definition of “notional sales tax liability” as defined in Rule 28A(2)(n) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975

The TDS provisions in Chapter XVII-B relating to payment of income chargeable under the head “Salaries”, which are in the nature of machinery provisions to enable collection and recovery of tax forms an integrated Code with the charging and computation provisions under the 1961 Act, which determines the assessability/taxability of “salaries” in the hands of the employee-assessee. Consequently, Section 192(1) has to be read with Section 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation thereto. Therefore, if any payment of income chargeable under the head “Salaries” falls within Section 9(1)(ii) then TDS provisions would stand attracted. In this batch of civil appeals, identification of the recipient of salary is not in dispute. In our view, therefore, the tax-deductorassessee (respondent(s)) were duty bound to deduct tax at source under Section 192(1) from the Home Salary/special allowance(s) paid abroad by the foreign company, particularly when no work stood performed for the foreign company and the total remuneration stood paid only on account of services rendered in India during the period in question. As stated above, in this matter, we have before us 104 civil appeals. We are directing the AO to examine each case to ascertain whether the employee-assessee (recipient) has paid the tax due on the Home Salary/special allowance(s) received from the foreign company. In case taxes due on Home Salary/special allowance(s) stands paid off then the AO shall not proceed under Section 201(1). In cases where the tax has not been paid, the AO shall proceed under Section 201(1) to recover the shortfall in the payment of tax.
no penalty proceedings under Section 271C shall be taken in any of these cases as the issue involved was a nascent issue. Accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings under Section 271C

Larger Bench: High Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the “reference application” filed by the Commissioner under unamended Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 beyond the prescribed period of 180 days

It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand

In respect of sale to UTS & TSN the goods were being examined by the Supervisors of these customers before dispatch from their factory and stickers bearing UTS/TSN were being affixed and these sticker bear the words “Checked Sl. No. Do not remove this sticker” and that the Department has treated the words UTS and TSN as brand name belonging to other and has disallowed the benefit of small scale exemption notification. The conclusions of CESTAT are essentially factual and, therefore, there is no scope for interference

whether Intravenous Fluids having a therapeutic value stood covered under Exemption Notification No.3/2001

Whether, the additional liability arising on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange in respect of loans taken for revenue purposes could be allowed as deduction under Section 37(1) in the year of fluctuation in the rate of exchange or whether the same could only be allowed in the year of repayment of such loans?
Whether the assessee is entitled to adjust the actual cost of imported assets acquired in foreign currency on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange at each balance sheet date, pending actual payment of the varied liability?

classification of “Dant Manjan Lal” (DML) manufactured by M/s. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited . While Baidyanath contends that the product DML is a medicament under Chapter Subheading 3003.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the stand of the Department is that the said product is a cosmetic/toiletry preparation/tooth powder classifiable under Chapter Heading 33.06.
common parlance test continues to be one of the determinative tests for classification of a product whether medicament or cosmetic. There being no change in the nature, character and uses of DML, it has to be held to be a tooth powder – as held in Baidyanath I1. DML is used routinely for dental hygiene. Since tooth powder is specifically covered by Chapter Sub-heading 3306, it has to be classified thereunder. By virtue of Chapter Note 1(d) of Chapter 30 even if the product DML has some therapeutic or medicinal properties, the product stands excluded from Chapter 30

Larger Bench: It is true that the appellant, in its writ petition, has not made a specific prayer that the said Notification dated 21st January 2006 was ultra vires or otherwise illegal but, as indicated hereinbefore, a specific ground in that behalf had been taken in respect thereof. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the question as to whether the said Notification could have a retrospective effect or retro-active operation being a jurisdictional fact, should have been determined by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is well known that when an order of a statutory authority is questioned on the ground that the same suffers from lack of jurisdiction, alternative remedy may not be a bar.

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 unamended Section 7 for the assessment year 2006-07?
whether Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) operate in different spheres and if not whether the said amended section violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as contended in the writ petition?

Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963- whether imposition of a different tariff in the middle of the assessment year could be given effect to in the absence of a proper machinery for computing the tax liability. In this connection, the Court was required to consider the scheme of the entire Act particularly the difference between Sections 5 and 7 of the 1963 Act

sale, promotion and marketing of lottery tickets would be exigible to ‘Service Tax’ within the meaning of the provisions of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994
It is, therefore, evident that by reason of an explanation, a substantive law may also be introduced. If a substantive law is introduced, it will have no retrospective effect. The notice issued to the assessee by the appellant has, thus, rightly been held to be liable to be set aside. Subject to the constitutionality of the Act, in view of the explanation appended to this, we are of the opinion that the service tax, if any, would be payable only with effect from May, 2008 and not with retrospective effect

the reason assigned by the Tribunal to strike down the levy of penalty against the assessees is as misconceived as the interpretation of Dharamendra Textile is misconstrued by the Revenue. We completely fail to see how payment of the differential duty, whether before or after the show cause notice is issued, can alter the liability for penalty, the conditions for which are clearly spelled out in section 11AC of the Act.
we fail to see how the decision in Dharamendra Textile can be said to hold that section 11AC would apply to every case of non-payment or short payment of duty regardless of the conditions expressly mentioned in the section for its application.
The decision in Dharamendra Textile must, therefore, be understood to mean that though the application of section 11AC would depend upon the existence or otherwise of the conditions expressly stated in the section, once the section is applicable in a case the concerned authority would have no discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed equal to the duty determined under sub-section (2) of section 11A. That is what Dharamendra Textile decides.

If the historical trend indicates that large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and in the past if the facts established show that defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold then the provision made for warranty in respect of the army of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts under Section 37 of the 1961 Act

Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for penalty. It, therefore, requires strict consideration. Period of limitation provided for in the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to initiate a proceeding for imposition of penalty on the expiry thereof. The proviso appended to Section 11-A(1) of the Act makes an exception to the said Rule, the ingredients whereof are thus required to be established for invoking the extended period of limitation. If on the materials produced by the parties, the Tribunal had arrived at a finding of fact that there had been no suppression on the part of the appellant after 22nd January, 1991, the question of invoking the extended period of jurisdiction did not arise. The show cause notice dated 28th March, 1994 thus having been issued after the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act, was clearly barred by limitation.
whether a party is guilty of suppression of fact or not is essentially a question of fact. It does not per se give rise to substantial question of law per se.

Policy decision taken by the State of Kerala to grant exemption from payment of sales tax with a view to attract more investment in the State. The said policy decision was issued by way of a Notification bearing SRO No.1729/1993 issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 providing for exemption to New Industrial Units set up in the State of Kerala
An exemption notification and a notification withdrawing the benefit granted would, however, stand on different footings. For the said purpose, the industrial policy is required to be kept in mind. It must also be taken into consideration for the purpose of construing the exemption notification.
the appellant admittedly has even not realized any tax from its purchasers. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion, that the respondents must, thus, be held to be bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Whereas the order under Section 263 of the Act and consequently the notices under Section 148 of the Act have been held to be not maintainable, we are constrained to think that the Assessing Officer had passed an order at the instance of the higher authority which is illegal. the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer on the dictates of the higher authorities being wholly without jurisdiction, it was a nullity

The payment of differential duty by the assessee at the time of issuance of supplementary invoices to the customers demanding the balance of the revised prices clearly falls under the provision of sub-section (2B) of section 11A of the Act and attracted levy of interest under section 11AB of the Act.

Whether the concept of “balancing charge” in Section 41(2) could be read into Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Whether “commission” received by the appellant from the State Government was really in the nature of payment for the letting of the godowns maintained by the appellant for storage?
High Court was right in coming to conclusion that the assessee was storing the commodities in question in its godowns as part of its own trading stock, hence it was not entitled to claim deduction for such margin under Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act.

Whether ITAT was right in ordering deletion of enhanced compensation and interest thereon from the total income of the assessee on the ground that the said two items, awarded by the Reference Court, was under dispute in First Appeal before the High Court.
whether additional amount under Section 23(1A), solatium under Section 23(2), interest paid on excess compensation under Section 28 and interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act, could be treated as part of the compensation under Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act?

Whether expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery, in the facts and circumstances of this case, amounts to ‘revenue expenditure’ deductible under section 37 of the Act or ‘current repairs’ deductible under section 31 of the Act.

Government provided investment subsidy at various rates depending upon the backwardness of different districts of the State apart from granting deferment/ tax holiday on sales tax
Although the word ‘modification’ may not be held to be expressly repealing the earlier notifications, indisputably, the State intended to depart from the conditions laid down in the earlier GOMs. If the condition of local sale, thus, had not been incorporated in the GOMs, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for incorporating the same by reference or otherwise.