Advanced Search Results

Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Montgomery Emerging Markets Fund

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)100ITD217(Mum.)

Act, 1987.25. The learned Counsel further continued to explain that the said amendment was again undone by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from assessment year 2003-04 onwards whereby the special treatment given to capital loss has been re-instated … sum and substance of the facts of the case.14.1 In the connected first appeals, the CIT(A) observed that Section 70 provides for setting off of loss from one source of income against gain from another source under the

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2007)7STR673

in one case (Service Tax Appeal No. 2/23 of 2005) of Rs. 60,26,508/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, imposing penalty of Rs. 48,700/- under Section 76 and ordering interest amount of Rs. 8,84,287/- under Section … the show cause notice was issued in that case in the year 2002 and it is in that context the Tribunal concluded in para 9 … liability under Section 73 covered the cases of the assessees who were liable to file their returns under Section 70 and that, therefore, the present assessees were not liable to pay tax. It was also urged that even

C.C.E. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board

Court : Kerala

Subject : Service Tax

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35G and 35G(3); Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Rules 6 and 6(1); Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 65(31), 65(105), 68, 69, 70, 73, 73(1), 75, 75A, 76, 77, 78, 94(1) and 94(2); Service Tax Act

Reported in : (2008)214CTR(Ker)97; 2006(4)KLT749; 2006[3]STR625; (2007)5VST46(Ker)

Commissioner of Central Excise noticed that the KSE Board had contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 by not filing the prescribed return, Section 68 by not remitting the service tax due and Section … Board revealed that the assessee has paid an amount of 60,98,282,83 Canadian Dollars between July 1998 and December 2002 against invoices issued by the consulting firm during the period from July 1998 to December 2002 as consultancy

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Thiruvana ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service Tax

Acts : Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 65, 65(31), 65(41), 66, 68, 68(1A), 68(2), 69, 69(1), 70, 71, 73, 75 and 105; Finance Act, 2000 - Sections 116 and 117; Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 - Sections 3(3); Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Rules 2(1), 6 and 6(1); Constitution of India - Article 246(1); Income Tax Act

Reported in : AIR2008SC798; (2008)214CTR(SC)87; 2007(14)SCALE311; 2008[9]STR3; (2008)12VST1(SC); 2008AIRSCW25; 2008(1)SCC780.

as to whether the appellant- Kerala State Electricity Board, the service recipient, within the meaning of provisions of Finance Act, 1994, levying service tax, is liable to pay any interest on the amount of tax due to the … for which the service tax was due is August 1998 to September 2002. Under the agreement, indisputably, the appellant was responsible to make payment of … of Central Excise may, on the basis of information contained in the return filed by the assessee under Section 70, verify the correctness of the tax assessed by the assessee on the services provided.(2) The Superintendent of Central

Cce Vs. Jaiswal Equipment and Holdings

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2007)7STR665

the Service Tax calculated thereon was Rs. 9,981/-. As no return was filed under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and material facts were not disclosed, show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 22.11.2002 for

Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2002)LC634Tri(Mum.)bai

Matched in: Citation (2002)LC634Tri(Mum.)bai

Razorpay Software Private Limited Vs. Union Of India

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

The cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 70 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the issuance of summons is impugned in this petition by the petitioner - accused No.7.2. The summary … any person in charge of the day to day affairs of the company as stated in Explanation-2 to Section 70 of the 2002, Act.9. After carefully considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the … that without verification of the credibility of an entity viz., M/s.Jamnadas Morarji Finance Pvt. Ltd., (accused No.5), allowed the transactions in the name of the

Razorpay Software Private Limited vs Union of India

Court : Karnataka

FOLLOWING:ORDERThe cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 70 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the issuance of summons is impugned in this petition by the petitioner - accused No.7.2. The summary … any person in charge of the day to day affairs of the company as stated in Explanation-2 to Section 70 of the 2002, Act.9. After carefully considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the … that without verification of the credibility of an entity viz., M/s.Jamnadas Morarji Finance Pvt. Ltd., (accused No.5), allowed the transactions in the name of the

Krishna Kumar Rawat and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)210CTR(Raj)553; RLW2007(4)Raj3133

accruing as a result of such transfer. Apart from the fact that Section 50C was introduced by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 and was not available when the subject compulsory purchase order was passed, this provision … 37-1 was filed on 31st Dec, 1993 and show cause notice was served on 11th March, 1994 i.e. 70 days after filing of the returns and therefore the Appropriate Authority was not justified in rejecting the request

Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors Chief Manager

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

CJI1 Leave granted. BRIEF BACKGROUND:2. In the present batch of cases, the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 and of the rules framed in consonance has been assailed. While it would be repetitious to reproduce … Section 13 (5- A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 which permits secured creditors to participate in auction of immoveable property if it remained unsold for want of … Supreme Court shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 70 years. CAT:4. In the case of the Central Administrative Tribunal, we clarify