Advanced Search Results

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Sales TaxMedia and Communication

Acts : Central Sales Tax Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 11; Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1), 32, 131, 136, 141, 226, 246(1), 248(1), 286, 366, 366(12) and 366(29A); Customs Act - Sections 2(22); Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 65(16), 65(72) and 66; Finance Act, 2002 - Sections 149(90) and 149(92); Finance Act, 2003 - Sections 159(104), 159(105), 159(110) and 159 (111); Government of India Act, 1935; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 11 and 12; Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950; Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act - Sections 2; Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959; Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Sections 2(7); State Sales Tax Act; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Sections 2; Telegr

Reported in : AIR2006SC1383; (2006)4CompLJ330(SC); (2006)201CTR(SC)346; [2006]282ITR273(SC); JT2006(3)SC114; 2006(2)SCALE752; (2006)3SCC1; [2006]145STC91(SC); 2006[2]STR161; [2006]152; [2006] 2 SCR 823

The liability of service providers to service tax was continued under Section 159(105)(110) (b) and (111) of the Finance Act, 2003. The definition of subscriber was added in sub Section (104) as meaning 'a person to whom any service … of services, was not raised in that case. (ii) that the decision was without jurisdiction because of Article 131 of the Constitution, and (iii) that every assessment year gave rise to a fresh cause of action. According

Rajan Jewellery vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

amendment to Finance Act, 1995 byintroduction of a block assessment and later introduction of Section 153 A by Finance Act, 2003. It is contended that the validity of the search is the most important issue insofar as examining thesustainability … first instance, the appeal is to be considered as a continuation of the proceedings as is provided under Section 131 and Section 255(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had also produced the affidavits of the ::16::

Rajan Jewellary vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

amendment to Finance Act, 1995 byintroduction of a block assessment and later introduction of Section 153 A by Finance Act, 2003. It is contended that the validity of the search is the most important issue insofar as examining thesustainability … first instance, the appeal is to be considered as a continuation of the proceedings as is provided under Section 131 and Section 255(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had also produced the affidavits of the ::16::

Rajan Jewellery vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

amendment to Finance Act, 1995 byintroduction of a block assessment and later introduction of Section 153 A by Finance Act, 2003. It is contended that the validity of the search is the most important issue insofar as examining thesustainability … first instance, the appeal is to be considered as a continuation of the proceedings as is provided under Section 131 and Section 255(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had also produced the affidavits of the ::16::

Rajan Jewellery vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

amendment to Finance Act, 1995 byintroduction of a block assessment and later introduction of Section 153 A by Finance Act, 2003. It is contended that the validity of the search is the most important issue insofar as examining thesustainability … first instance, the appeal is to be considered as a continuation of the proceedings as is provided under Section 131 and Section 255(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had also produced the affidavits of the ::16::

Rajan Jewellary vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

amendment to Finance Act, 1995 byintroduction of a block assessment and later introduction of Section 153 A by Finance Act, 2003. It is contended that the validity of the search is the most important issue insofar as examining thesustainability … first instance, the appeal is to be considered as a continuation of the proceedings as is provided under Section 131 and Section 255(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had also produced the affidavits of the ::16::

Rajan Jewellery vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

amendment to Finance Act, 1995 byintroduction of a block assessment and later introduction of Section 153 A by Finance Act, 2003. It is contended that the validity of the search is the most important issue insofar as examining thesustainability … first instance, the appeal is to be considered as a continuation of the proceedings as is provided under Section 131 and Section 255(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had also produced the affidavits of the ::16::

Rajan Jewellary vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

amendment to Finance Act, 1995 byintroduction of a block assessment and later introduction of Section 153 A by Finance Act, 2003. It is contended that the validity of the search is the most important issue insofar as examining thesustainability … first instance, the appeal is to be considered as a continuation of the proceedings as is provided under Section 131 and Section 255(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had also produced the affidavits of the ::16::

Bihar Chamber of Commerce Vs. Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

Subject : Education

The Appeal No. 131 of 2012 has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in … the Board? F. whether the State Commission has erred by adopting a methodology for calculation of interest and finance charges which are not provided for in the Regulations, 2007? G. whether the State Commission has erred in

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shubham Industries

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)106TTJLuck34

Section 142A of the IT Act, 1961. He submitted that the said section has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2004, effective from 15th Nov., 1972. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal dt. 9th Nov., 2004, … of Dr. Avinesh Kumar Agarwal (supra). This judgment was rendered in September, 2003 i.e. before the insertion of Section 142A, and hence, the law declared … miscellaneous applications are not relevant. He further submitted that the AO made a reference to the DVO under Section 131(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and the apex Court has held in the case of Smt Amiya Bala