Advanced Search Results

M/s. Mascon Multiservices and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Oman Re ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

(2009) 8 SCC 520, Mussafar Shah Vs. MMTC 83 2000 Delhi LT 514 and Saurabh Kalani Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. 2003(3) Arb.LR 345 (Bom) (DB)) 201. Hence the petitioner must show special bias in this claim. The … the loss as stipulated and specified in Clause 18 of the Contract. 81. Under the 3rd part of Section 55 if the time was of … 5th March, 2010 which has been challenged in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) essentially as being vitiated by bias and upon the Arbitrator not having considered the evidence

Kwality Milk Foods Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)100ITD199(Chennai)

has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following question: Whether amendment in proviso to Section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 could be construed to be curative, as such retrospective in nature? 2. We have heard the rival submissions … the case of Allied Motors (P.)Ltd v. CIT reversing Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [l99l] 189 ITR 81 59 Taxman 160 (Delhi). In taking the above view, the Apex Court has approved the view taken in

income Tax Officer Vs. Ranisati Fabric Mills P. Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)177

366 in which it has been held that the omission of the second proviso to Section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1-4-2004 has no retrospective operation so as to make it applicable to the earlier period and therefore … Union of India [1991] 187 ITR 703 and in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 81 (Delhi). Following the majority decisions of the High Courts stated above, we answer the question in the affirmative,

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.K. Khosla

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17(1), 17(2), 17(3), 143(1), 143(3), 147 and 148; ;Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 - Section 7(1); ;Income Tax Rules - Rule 3; ;Finance Act, 1999 - Section 17(2); ;Finance Act, 2001; ;Finance Act, 2002 - Section 271; ;Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 - Section 2; ;Constitution of India - Article 20(1)

Finance Act, 2002, only stated that the amended provision would come into force with effect from April 1, 2003. The statute nowhere stated that the said amendment was either clarificatory or declaratory. On the contrary, the statute … is answered accordingly.Further, this Court also considered the new provision of Section 17(3)(ii), which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2002 and held that the amendment is only prospective in nature and not retrospective and in paragraph 22,

Sony India (P) Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

learned CIT(A), however, noted that the provisions of Section 234D have been introduced in the statute by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f.1.6.2003. According to him, the said provisions thus were applicable only in relation to AY 2003-04 onwards and

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)1

144 : (2005) 92ITD 1 (Del) where it has been held that the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2003 is clarificatory in nature. After the amendment no disallowance for late payment can be made even if the … April, 1986. The DoT in exercise of the power of the Central Government conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, granted licence vide letter No. 1-101/85-MTAC/PHB, dt. 27th March, 1986, to establish,

Merit Enterprises Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)288ITR226(Hyd.)

no question of Parliament overruling the decision of the Supreme Court by passing Finance Act, 2000, and the Finance Act, 2003, to amend the provisions retrospectively. It was held in that context that a Legislature is competent to remove … in Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT 201 ITR 338 rendered under the corresponding earlier proviso, Section 81, held that the phrase "produce of its members" must refer to agricultural produce actually "produced by its members."

M/S Wipro Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Direct Taxation

of income tax in both the countries was sine qua non. However, by the amendment made by the Finance Act 2003, the benefit of granting the relief was extended to even in respect of income tax chargeable under the … year proves that, in respect of his income which accrued or - 81 - arose during that previous year outside India (and which is not … …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) - 2 - This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 30.05.2008 passed in ITA No.468/BNG/2006, for the assessment year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)11TTJ(Mum.)502

that the provisions of Section 43B are applicable, then, by virtue of the amendments brought about by the Finance Act, 2003, the deduction for Rs. 95,50,940 ought to be allowed inasmuch the Special Bench of this Tribunal in Kwality … v. CIT (supra), Asstt. CIT v. Kanchanganga Seeds Co. (P) Ltd. (2002) 75 TTJ (Hyd) 520 : (2002) 81 ITD 152 (Hyd), CIT v. United General Trust Ltd. ,Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (supra) and

V.K. Prasad and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Finance Act, 2001 - Sections 17, 17(2) and 295(2); Finance Rules - Rule 3; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 245; Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 3, 3(1) and 3(7); Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 17 and 17(2)

Reported in : [2004]271ITR178(Ker)

petition. The petitioners seek for a declaration that section 17(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act as inserted by the Finance Act 2001, is illegal and violative of articles 19(1)(g) and 246 of the Constitution of India, and a declaration … common question arises for consideration. Hence they are taken up together for hearing.2. O. P. No. 10569 of 2003 and O. P. No. 8425 of 2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. In O. P. … substituted by the Income-tax (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2001 (see [2001] 251 ITR 81) by the second respondent under its Notification No. 940(E), dated September 25,