Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.51 seconds)

Narayanaswamy Ramamoorthy, Chennai vs Acit Central Circle 1(3), Chennai on 7 February, 2024

14. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation vs Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZL), (Supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of dispute between two parties held that two ministries :-30-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 of Union of India cannot take diagonally opposite stand to each other. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has taken one stand and stated that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the trust and value of investment in said trust is taxable in the hands of the assessee, whereas, the Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Zonal Office, has stated that the investment in Windsor Trust has been explained out of loan borrowed from the bank and the assessee has not made any contribution to the Windsor Trust.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rattanindia Power Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 6 February, 2024

45) Also, Supreme Court Judgement titled Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SCC 1398 (para 52), settled the principle that the Public Authority cannot be permitted to take stand which are diagonally opposite and therefore MSEDCL cannot be permitted to renege from its contractual obligations on the ground of not providing the schedule by shouldering the responsibility on the MSLDC in the light of MoD principles.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heranba Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva on 8 August, 2025

(c) Classification is the function of the department. The Appellants has also locally supplied the products under dispute under the same tariff heading i.e., CTH 38089910 or CTH 38089990 as "Pesticides, not elsewhere specified or included" or "others" on payment of applicable GST/excise duty as the case may be. Neither the excise department nor GST authorities has yet disputed the classification adopted by the Appellants. A sample invoice was also shown in support of the aforesaid contention. It is settled law that the different wings/Departments of the Government cannot adopt contrary stand in respect of the same product. Thus, the customs authorities and the excise / GST department cannot take contrary stands in respect of the same issue. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Adani Port Special Economic Zone Limited & Ors [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1398] and Lloyd Customs Appeal No. 87330 of 2024 6 Electric and Engineering Limited vs. State of Himachal/ Pradesh [(2016) 1 SCC 560].
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Ajmani Infrastructure And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025

41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the State Government cannot speak two voices. What is given by the right hand, cannot be taken by the left hand. Reference is made to the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Warehousing Corpn. v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 110, relevant part of which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

M/S. Ajmani Infrastructure And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025

41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the State Government cannot speak two voices. What is given by the right hand, cannot be taken by the left hand. Reference is made to the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Warehousing Corpn. v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 110, relevant part of which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document
1   2 Next