Advanced Search Results

Commr.of Income Tax-i,new Delhi Vs. Vatika Township P.Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

to the CIT, in view of the provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to … 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8769 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.8901 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL No.1160 OF2007CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8766-8767 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6767-6768 of 2014) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all

Mitsui and Company Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1999)65TTJ(Del)1

Explanationn in section 9(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 1st April, 1979 by the Finance Act, 1983, it is clarified and declared that the income which falls under the head 'salaries' payable for services … small amount of salary paid to its expatriate employees. The Assistant Commissioner issued a letter on 28th March, 1995, calling for information under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act about the salary, etc., paid to expatriate … granted. However, in the intervening period the company filed a letter dt. 8-5-1995, wherein, according to the Assistant Commissioner, it denied having paid any salary

Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer,

Court : Chennai

Subject : ExciseSales Tax/VAT

Acts : Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Sections 3, 3A, 3B, 3(2) and 8; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 14 and 15; Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957; Finance Act, 1996; Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Central Administrative Act; Finance Act, 1995; Finance Act, 2001; Central Excise Act; Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act; State Sales Tax Act - Sections 8; Delhi Sales Tax Act; Minimum Wages Act; Orissa Sales Tax Act; Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7; Constitution of India - Articles 246, 286 and 286(3)

Reported in : 2009(243)ELT179(Mad); (2009)24VST193(Mad)

'Khara Masala','Kimam', 'Dokta', 'Zarda','Sukha' and 'Surti'.24.04 2404.41 Bearing a brand name 25% 10%2404.49 Other 'Nil' 'Nil'=================================================16. By the Finance Act, 1995, 'Pan Masala' was brought under the Heading 21.06. In the year 1995, the IV Schedule was amended, and … India and is repugnant to Sl. No. 1 (iv) (d) of Part-A to the Third Schedule read with Section 8 of the TNGST Act and the general scheme of levy of additional duty of excise under the Additional

Adar Tea Produce Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of I ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32 and 43(3); Finance Act, 1995; Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 8(2); Taxation Law

Reported in : [2000]244ITR608(Mad)

Balasubramanian, J.1. The above writ petitions are for a writ of declaration to declare Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1995, ultra vires, illegal and void of the Constitution of India.2. Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1995, has … invalid and unconstitutional.5. Mr. S. V. Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that under Rule 8(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the deduction is granted in respect of expenditure incurred on replacement of old

Birla Cement Works Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1997)139CTR(Raj)540

III to sub-s. (2) of S. 194C of the Act was thereafter added by S. 34 of the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1st July, 1995. This Expln. III has been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment in … in certain cases, was originally inserted by the Finance Act, 1972 w.e.f. 1st April, 1972 and the amended section reads as under :'Sec. 194C. Payment to contractors and sub-contractors : (1) Any person responsible for paying any … made to the transport contractors in accordance with Circular No. 681, dt. 8th March, 1994.2. No deduction of the TDS was made by the petitioner

Kechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...

Court : Kerala

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 133(6)

Reported in : (2003)182CTR(Ker)517; [2003]263ITR161(Ker); 2003(2)KLT32

ambit of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') as amended by the Finance Act, 1995 arise for consideration in these appeals. All these writ appeals arise from a common judgment of the learned

Ms Md Overseas Limited Vs. Director General of Income Tax and Others

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 132(1) clauses (i) to (v), 127, 147; SEZ Act - Section 22; Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Sub-Rule (2) of rule 112; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - section 132(1) or (1A). 165; RTI Act - Section 24; Evidence Act - Section 75, 123, 125; Constitution Of India - Article 21

question of relevancy was neither raised nor considered by the Supreme Court; The Pratap-Singh case was decided before Finance Act, 1995 was enforced. At that time, the illegality of search did not make any difference.8 Now it makes difference … 1. The main question involved at this stage of the case is, if a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) is challenged on the ground that information leading

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(40), 119, 139(1), 139(4), 139(8), 140A, 142(1), 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 144, 147, 148, 154, 155, 156, 208, 210, 215(4), 216, 220(2A), 234A to 234C, 243B(3), 245C, 245C(1C), 245C(1D), 245D, 245D(2A) to (2D), 245D(4), 245D(6), 245D(6A), 245F(1), 245F(2), 245H, 245H(1), 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 and 264; Finance Act, 1995; Finance Act, 1987; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975

Reported in : AIR2003SC3942; (2003)179CTR(SC)362; (2003)2MLJ65(SC); (2003)3SCC57; [2002]SUPP5SCR387

thousand rupees in the earlier proviso has been substituted by the expression 'one hundred thousand rupees' by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1.7.1995. Some changes were introduced by Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1.6.1987 in Sub-section (1B) and (1C) which

Shri Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs. the Lokayukta and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Delhi Liquor license Rules, 1976 - Rules 33, 33(1A) and 33(8); Delhi Liquor license Act - Sections 33(1A); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 617; Municipal Corporation Act, 1957; Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993; Punjab Excise Act - Sections 41; ; Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 - Sections 2 and 7; Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)669; 105(2003)DLT351; 2003(69)DRJ323

order observing that opening of this vend at the said place was contrary to rules. On 25.9.2002 the Finance Minister filed a detailed affidavit before the Lokayukta reiterating Government's stand that action of Excise Department in granting … an issue with respect to the powers and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short). It may be mentioned at this stage itself that … of Chartered Accountants was not an educational institute within the meaning of Section 33(1A) of the Delhi Liquor license Rules. He concluded his affidavit by … to under what circumstances said vend was allowed to be opened. On 8.8.2002 he passed an order observing that opening of this vend at the

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand theatres

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2000)160CTR(SC)492; [2000]110TAXMAN338(SC)

Hotel's case (supra) the Legislature amended the definition of 'plant' in section 43(3) of the Act by the Finance Act, 1995. The amending section clearly shows that the legislative intent was never to exclude cinema and hotel buildings which … is entitled to higher rate of depreciation on the theatre?The High Court of Kerala in IT Reference No. 85 of 1996 considered the above questions and after relying upon its earlier decision in CIT v. Abhilash Theatre