Advanced Search Results

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkha ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(19), 37(1), 40A(2), 80P and 260A; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 2(4), 65, 78 and 79A; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3(3); Co-operative Societies Act, 1912; Finance Act, 2001 - Sections 2(18), 2(24), 27(111). 36(1), 40, 45(3), 80L(1), 80P, 139(1), 193, 194A(3), 269T and 269

Reported in : (2008)214CTR(Bom)662; [2008]301ITR191(Bom)

27(111). 36(1)(ia), 40(ba), 45(3), 80L(1)(ii), (vi), (via), (viii), (ix), 80P, Expln. 1 (b)(1) to Section 139 (1)(prior to Finance Act, 2001), 193 (iib), 194A(3)(i), (v), 269T and 269 (VA). In these circumstances, it was held that under the IT

Jaya Nursing Home And Child'S Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2003)(90)ECC848

had not been rescinded. Section 159A has been given retrospective effect by Parliament under Section 114 of the Finance Act, 2001 and accordingly the provisions of Section 159A operate from the 1st day of February, 1963, notwithstanding the High … they had not fulfilled the conditions of the Notification, and proposing that the imported equipment be confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and the importer be penalised under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Act. The

Fargo Marine Co. Ltd. Vs. Cc (Seaport)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2004)(94)ECC437

such precautions against smuggling as may be specified in the rules. The Second condition was removed by the Finance Act, 1988. The effect of the amendment was that failure to take precautions as specified by the department was … vessel was set aside. (b) CARL F. Peters v. CCE, (Prev) Mumbai, 2001 (133) ELT 580 (Tri-Mumbai) wherein also in similar circumstances the confiscation of … in established by evidence on record. Since he was not implicated by others, he was not penalised under Section 111(d) & (e) of the Act and since the vessel was admittedly used for smuggling purpose and the captain

Mangali Impex Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Customs

and (2B) to Section 28 of the Act were inserted with effect from 11th May 2001 by the Finance Act, 2001. Two Notifications bearing Nos. 250-Cus and 251-Cus were issued on 27th August 1983 by the Central Government in … Respondent No. 2 firm as well as Respondent No. 1, Sayed Ali alleging violation of the provisions of Section 111 (d) of the Act. This was followed by an adjudication order being passed on 3rd February 1993 by

Bangalore Turf Club Limited Vs. Union of India

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Education

is made clear by Section 74A(3). 7.4. He would contend that the change that was brought about by Finance Act, 2001 was to introduce 32 tax deduction at source on winnings from ‘card game and other game of any … Act with a view to placing the tax deducted at source from horse race winnings on a par 111 with the tax deducted at source from other categories of income. 25.3 The aforesaid provisions take effect from

ParsIn Chemicals and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2002)LC293

ELT 281 (SC). Further, the amendment made to proviso (ii) to Section 3 of the Act, through the Finance Act, 2001, is not retrospective and cannot be applied to past cases interpreting a statute the Court is required to … that rule. Capital goods imported by virtue of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dt. 9.2.1981 should not be confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 as they were utilized for manufacture of goods which were not exported. Penalty

Surana Metals and Steels (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2006)(109)ECC6

dated 1-3-2001. Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was omitted by Parliament under Section 121 of the Finance Act, 2001, which came into force on 11-5-2001.Thus Rules 96ZO and 96ZP were omitted with effect from 1-3-2001 and Section … & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad and Kundil Alloys (P) Ltd. E.L.T. 638 (Tribunal) : 2006 TIOL 111 CESTAT MUM. It was also pointed out that the decision of the West Zonal Bench was followed by

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Abhinandan Investment Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

“investment company” existed in the statute. However, several definitions were enacted. “Financial investment company” was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991. By Section 2(9)(d) it is defined as “a company whose gross total income consists mainly … the terms of payment given in the offer document, however, were different inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 111 was payable on application, whereas Rs.389 was payable on allotment and since the option to surrender the NCDs

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Ii Vs. Medicare Investments Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

“investment company” existed in the statute. However, several definitions were enacted. “Financial investment company” was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991. By Section 2(9)(d) it is defined as “a company whose gross total income consists mainly … the terms of payment given in the offer document, however, were different inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 111 was payable on application, whereas Rs.389 was payable on allotment and since the option to surrender the NCDs

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Equipments Leasing and Cons. Ser ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

“investment company” existed in the statute. However, several definitions were enacted. “Financial investment company” was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991. By Section 2(9)(d) it is defined as “a company whose gross total income consists mainly … the terms of payment given in the offer document, however, were different inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 111 was payable on application, whereas Rs.389 was payable on allotment and since the option to surrender the NCDs