Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: finance act 2000 section 114 · Page 1 of about 629 results (0.047 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Mar 11 2008

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M.M.K. Jewellers and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2008

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 11A, 18, 28, 28AB, 28(1), 28(2), 28(3), 72(1), 108, 111, 112, 114, 114A, 130E, 135, 135A, 140 and 143(3); Finance Act, 2000

Reported in : 2008(127)ECC1; 2008(153)LC1(SC); 2008(225)ELT3(SC); 2008(4)SCALE417; (2008)5SCC617; 2008AIRSCW2353

interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President;(ii) any amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to … where any penalty has been levied under this section, no penalty shall be levied under Section 112 or Section 114.Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that-(i) the provisions of this section shall also apply to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 12 2009

Carpenter Classic Exim P. Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs (imports) and an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-12-2009

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act 1962 - Sections 28AB, 28(2), 108, 111, 112, 114 and 114A; Finance Act, 2000

Reported in : 2009(164)LC117(SC); 2009(235)ELT201(SC); 2009(3)SCALE144; (2009)11SCC293

interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President;(ii) any amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to … to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act and the company was also liable to penalty under Section 114A of the Act. The differential duty was to be paid alongwith interest. The penalty however was deleted so

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 22 2007

U.K. Enterprises and anr. Vs. Commnr. of Customs and Central Excise an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-22-2007

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 23(2), 28(2), 28AB, 112, 114, 114A, 115, 115(2), 125 and 125(1); Finance Act, 2000

Reported in : 2007(123)ECC290; 2007(149)LC290(SC); 2007(218)ELT481(SC); JT2008(1)SC73; 2007(3)SCALE477; 2008AIRSCW712.

interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President;(ii) any amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to … by the appellants, accepted the appeal filed by the Revenue and enhanced the amount of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') from Rs. 50,000/- as imposed by the Commissioner of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Nov 01 2006

Tonira Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-01-2006

Subject : Service Tax

repealed, superseded or rescinded. This Section was introduced with effect from 11-5-2001 by the Finance Act, 2001. By Section 114 of the Finance Act, 2001 it was also, inter alia, provided that any action or omission under any … of introduction of Sub-section (2A) in Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. JA.1 Section 118 of the Finance Act, 2001 introduced Sub-section (2A) to Section 9A in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which is reproduced below: (2A) Notwithstanding … import of 1,48,000 Kg. of Ascorbic Acid imported during the period July 2000 to November 2001. L.2 Ascorbic Acid is a category of Vitamin-C used

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 21 2001

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-ii, New Delhi Vs. Motor General ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-21-2001

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10(2), 36(1), 115J, 119, 139(1), (4), 140A, 140A(1), 142(1), 143, 143(1), (3), 144, 147, 148, 154, 155, 156, 208, 210, 234A, 234B, 234C, 245D(1), (3), (4), 250, 254, 256(2), 260, 260A, 262, 263 and 264; DTL (Amendment) Act, 1987; DLT (Amendment) Act, 1989; Finance Act, 2000 - Sections 2; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2000; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001; Evidence Act - Sections 114

Reported in : [2002]254ITR449(Delhi)

incomewhere such shortfall is on account of increase in therate of surcharge under Section 2 of the Finance Act,2000 (10 of 2000), as amended by the TaxationLaws (Amendment) Act, 2000, and the assessed haspaid the amount of … the principal sum.As the assessed could not produce any document in this regard, anadverse inference in terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act should be drawn to theeffect that had those documents been produced, the same would

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 21 2014

M/S Kamla Aditya Construction Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Nov-21-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

on 24.09.2004 in presence of the then Chief Minister­Housing Minister, Development Commissioner, Finance Secretary, Housing Secretary, Managing Director of Jharkhand State Housing Board and others. … wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, Section 24(3)(b) and Section 27 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 are not applicable in the facts of the present case. A further prayer has been made seeking quashing … could have given permission for construction of shopping complex, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Mahapalika had violated Section 114 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 and thus, decision of Mahapalika to permit a private builder to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 21 2014

Kunal Anand Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Nov-21-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

on 24.09.2004 in presence of the then Chief Minister­Housing Minister, Development Commissioner, Finance Secretary, Housing Secretary, Managing Director of Jharkhand State Housing Board and others. … wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, Section 24(3)(b) and Section 27 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 are not applicable in the facts of the present case. A further prayer has been made seeking quashing … could have given permission for construction of shopping complex, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Mahapalika had violated Section 114 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 and thus, decision of Mahapalika to permit a private builder to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 21 2014

Modi Projects Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Nov-21-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

on 24.09.2004 in presence of the then Chief Minister­Housing Minister, Development Commissioner, Finance Secretary, Housing Secretary, Managing Director of Jharkhand State Housing Board and others. … wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, Section 24(3)(b) and Section 27 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 are not applicable in the facts of the present case. A further prayer has been made seeking quashing … could have given permission for construction of shopping complex, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Mahapalika had violated Section 114 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 and thus, decision of Mahapalika to permit a private builder to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 21 2014

Excel Venture Construction Co. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Nov-21-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

on 24.09.2004 in presence of the then Chief Minister­Housing Minister, Development Commissioner, Finance Secretary, Housing Secretary, Managing Director of Jharkhand State Housing Board and others. … wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, Section 24(3)(b) and Section 27 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 are not applicable in the facts of the present case. A further prayer has been made seeking quashing … could have given permission for construction of shopping complex, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Mahapalika had violated Section 114 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 and thus, decision of Mahapalika to permit a private builder to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 21 2014

Simplex Infrastructures Limite Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Nov-21-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

on 24.09.2004 in presence of the then Chief Minister­Housing Minister, Development Commissioner, Finance Secretary, Housing Secretary, Managing Director of Jharkhand State Housing Board and others. … wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, Section 24(3)(b) and Section 27 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 are not applicable in the facts of the present case. A further prayer has been made seeking quashing … could have given permission for construction of shopping complex, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Mahapalika had violated Section 114 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 and thus, decision of Mahapalika to permit a private builder to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial