Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Finance Act, 2003

24 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusM/S. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED

2009 INSC 126125 November 2009Disposed off

The case concerned whether employers could claim a deduction under Section 43‑B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for contributions to provident or welfare funds that were paid after the statutory due date but before filing the income‑tax return. The Finance Act, 2003 deleted the second proviso of Section 43‑B and amended th

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusEXCHANGE CENTRE

2020 INSC 35424 April 2020Dismissed

The UAE Exchange Centre, a UAE company, obtained RBI permission under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to operate liaison offices in India for limited functions such as receiving remittance data, printing cheques/drafts and couriering them to beneficiaries. The Authority for Advance Rulings held that income from the

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHERversusASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS

2025 INSC 75722 May 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered whether assessees engaged in broadcasting television signals to subscribers are liable to pay both entertainment tax under State enactments (Entry 62, List II of the Constitution) and service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 (Entry 97, List I). The Court held that the activity of broadcastin

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 105519 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India had granted a ten‑year exemption from excise duty for certain goods, including pan masala and tobacco products, through a 2003 notification. In 2007 it issued a new notification withdrawing that exemption on the ground that the products were hazardous to health. Manufacturers such as Unicorn Industri

R.C. TOBACCO PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 43119 September 2005Dismissed

The petitioners, job‑workers manufacturing cigarettes under exemption notifications issued in 1999, were ordered by the High Court to receive refunds of excise duty. After the High Court upheld the refunds, Parliament enacted Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003, retrospectively withdrawing the exemption and authorisin

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusM/S. ACTION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.

2006 INSC 44719 July 2006Dismissed

The assessee, Action Construction Equipment Ltd., manufactured mobile cranes but used a dummy unit, ACE Industries, to claim exemption and evade excise duty. The adjudicating authority fixed an assessable value of Rs 26,63,400 and duty of Rs 4,10,144; the appellate authority, relying on the Supreme Court’s Maruti Udyog

SAFETY RETREADING COMPANY (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM

2017 INSC 5418 January 2017Disposed off

Safety Retreading Company (P) Ltd entered into tyre retreading contracts and was assessed service tax on the total consideration, including material costs. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether service tax is payable on the entire amount or only on the service component as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.

M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-III, DELHI

2009 INSC 104717 August 2009Disposed off

Mis. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., a motor‑vehicle manufacturer, generated electricity in its plant using naphtha and diesel and sold a portion of the surplus to its joint ventures, vendors and the grid for a price. The company claimed CENVAT credit on the duty paid on the fuel used for electricity generation, arguing that elect

GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 15617 March 2005Dismissed

The petitioners, customers of goods‑transport operators and clearing‑and‑forwarding agents, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act 2000 and Section 158 of the Finance Act 2003 which retrospectively validated service‑tax levies that had been struck down in *Laghu Udyog Bharati*

C.I.T. & ANRversusMIS YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD

2016 INSC 115216 December 2016

The Supreme Court examined the true nature of Section 1OA of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Acts of 2000 and 2003, to determine whether it confers an exemption or a deduction and at what stage the benefit should be applied. The Court considered whether the provision falls within the computation of

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, FARIDABADversusGHANSHYAM (HUF)

2009 INSC 91316 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee (Ghanshyam HUF) received enhanced compensation and interest from the Haryana Urban Development Authority for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but omitted these amounts from its 1999-2000 return, arguing that they were in dispute in a pending appeal by the State. The Assessing Officer, CI

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, NEW DELHIversusVATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED

2014 INSC 62915 September 2014Disposed off

The case concerned a block assessment of undisclosed income for the period 01‑04‑1989 to 10‑02‑2000, where the Assessing Officer failed to levy surcharge under Section 113 of the Income‑Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax sought to levy surcharge retrospectively, relying on a proviso inserted in Section 113 by the

MIS. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.versusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GAUHATI & ORS.

2015 INSC 41714 May 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Mis. Dhrampal Satyapal Ltd., claimed exemption from excise duty under a 1999 notification for North‑Eastern industrial units, which was later withdrawn retrospectively by Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003. The Department issued recovery orders without a prior show‑cause notice, which the appellant arg

CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1

2022 INSC 106912 October 2022Dismissed

The appellants, including Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., deposited employees' EPF and ESI contributions after the statutory due dates and claimed deductions under s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, holding that the amounts constituted "income" under s.2(24)(x) and we

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V

2020 INSC 54411 September 2020Disposed off

The National Co‑operative Development Corporation (NCDC) earned interest on surplus funds held in its statutory fund and used that interest to make non‑refundable grants to state and national cooperative societies. The Assessing Officer disallowed the grants as capital expenditure, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (A

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-III

2021 INSC 39711 August 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd., unable to meet interest obligations on loans, entered a rehabilitation plan and issued convertible debentures to financial institutions in lieu of the interest due. The company claimed a deduction under Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the issuance of debentures cons

PRADIP J. MEHTAversusCOMMNR. OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

2008 INSC 48811 April 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, a marine engineer employed abroad, claimed "not ordinarily resident" status for AY 1982‑83 under s.6(6)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to exclude his foreign income under s.5(1)(c). The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding that the appellant had been resident in India for more than 730 days in t

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABADversusM/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD.

2008 INSC 1648 February 2008Case Partly allowed

Core Health Care Ltd., a manufacturer of intravenous solutions, borrowed money in 1991‑92 to install new machinery and claimed a deduction for the interest paid under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income‑Tax Act. The assessing officer disallowed the deduction, relying on the Challapalli Sugars case, on the ground that the

M/S KUSHAL FERTILISERS (P) LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

2009 INSC 7226 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Kushal Fertilisers Ltd, a manufacturer of MS conduit pipes, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No.202/88 but failed to obtain a licence or file a declaration under Rule 174. The Commissioner issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11A and Rule 209A alleging that the company suppressed the fa

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEYERAGE (P) LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2014 INSC 6014 September 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellant Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Ltd. had claimed CENVAT credit and refunds under notifications issued in 1999‑2002. After the Finance Act, 2003 amended those notifications retrospectively under Section 153, the Assistant Commissioner ordered recovery of Rs 2,20,18,124, demanding payment within 30 days. The a

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, T.N.versusM/S VINAYAGA BODY BUILDING INDUSTRY LTD.

2008 INSC 3004 March 2008Case Allowed

The respondent, Vinayaga Body Building Industry Ltd, manufactured motor cabs on duty‑paid chassis with a seating capacity of 12 passengers plus a driver. The chassis were invoiced by the manufacturer under sub‑heading 8706.29, but the Revenue classified the completed cabs under sub‑heading 8702.10, attracting a 1% Nati

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1332 March 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the provision of telephone services by telecom operators constitutes a sale of goods, a service, or a composite contract of both, and consequently whether State governments can levy sales tax under Entry 54 of List II. The petitioners argued that the transaction is purely a service, i

GURCHARAN SINGHversusDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

2008 INSC 4341 April 2008Dismissed

Gurcharan Singh, a customs officer, along with others, created fictitious firms to claim a duty drawback of Rs 1.04 crore for allegedly exported readymade garments that were over‑invoiced and of inferior quality. A complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act led to cognizance by a magistrate; the appellant’

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search