Advanced Search Results

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 … vs. Union of India (2014)17, whilst striking down the newly-created National Tax Tribunal under the National Tax Tribunals Act, 2005, it was observed that procedure of appointment and conditions of service of members must be akin to judges … the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.” 81. Corollary to the order dated 16th July 2018, six officers who had … petitioner had originally approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 (5- A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Shri Ganta Ramanaiah Naidu Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Gun ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : Service Tax

and confirmed the demand and interest and also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee are before us in appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel on behalf … (14) S.T.R. 289 (Bom.)] (iv) CCE. Vs. A.B. International [2007 (8) STR 81] (v) M/s Majestic Mobikes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [2008 … 7. The issue involved is regarding service tax liability on services rendered by the appellant during the period 2005-06 to 1.6.2007 under the category of ‘site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition service’. 8. On

Lcs City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Subject : Service Tax

with interest and a penalty of Rs.84,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The service … the levy came into force 16-06-05 and took out registration only after visit of the officers during December 2005. So it is argued that their actions were not bonafide. Further it is argued that a clarification issued … in respect of the following projects:- (i) TA Enclave, Velacherry consisting of 81 units (ii) Himardri, T.Nagar consisting of 20 units (iii) Kamakotivilasam, Madipakkam consisting

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)

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,

Cit-Iv vs.dlf Commercial Developers Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

which are not allocated while computing profits of the Hyderabad SEZ project; a. Establishment charges RS.2712.36 lacs b. Finance charges RS.8575.81 lacs c. Other expenses Rs.4242.01 lacs d. Depreciation Rs.753.80 lacs You are required to show cause … 4. The assessee resisted the notice contending that the induction of co- developer under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [hereafter “SEZ Act”]. was permissible by reason of Section 3(11). According to the assessee, the understanding arrived at

Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and anr. Vs. V.S. Krishnan and ors.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 27, 53, 53(1) to (4), 53(1)(2), 81(1A), 84, 84(2), 94(1), 143, 166(1), 172, 172(2), 172(3), 193(2), 255, 256, 256(1A), 256(4), 257, 257(1), 257(1A), 283, 290, 397, 397(1), 398, 399, 402 and 403; Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138; General Clauses Act - Sections 27; Citizenship Act, 1955 - Sections 18; Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 81; Companies Rules - Rule 3; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Reported in : (2007)2CompLJ143(Ker); [2007]76SCL185(Ker)

is the case of the petitioners that they joined the company when the company was in need of finance and chairman of the company lured doctors and other non-resident Indians to invest money when the company was … read with Sections 402 and 403 and Schedule XI of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') [since reported as V.S. Krishnan … the reports of the board of directors and auditors for the year 2005-2006;(b) appointment of directors in the place of those retiring and in the … the share capital of the company from Rs. 9,20,00,000 to Rs. 12,00,00,000. A special resolution as provided under Section 81(1A) was moved in the annual general body meeting for issuing shares to public, but, that was not passed.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs.atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

it is first necessary to understand the background in which the questions that have been framed arose. The Finance Act, 1960 (FA1960 exempted WTA No.16/2005 & connected matters Page 11 of 38 companies from the levy of wealth … JUDGMENT2109.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. These are eleven appeals by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (hereafter 'Revenue') under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (‘WTA’), against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)

Ram Parshotam Mittal Vs. Hotel Queen Road pvt.ltd. Andors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

on 4.8.2005.16. HQRL filed a civil suit being CS (OS) 992 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi for declaration, cancellation and mandatory injunction … undertaking in 2002­03 the entire investment was made through Moral. The amount involved was about Rs.45 crores. Moral financed this sum through a bank loan of about Rs.33.25 crores obtained on the credit worthiness of Mr. Ashok … and 25 lakh preference shares of Rs.100 per share and a Special Business Resolution No.10 was passed under section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Companies Act’). The appointment of Mr. 4 R.P.

Surbhi Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2007)(208)ELT578AAR

Contingent Duty (NCCD) @ 23% (levied under the Finance Act, 2001), Additional Duty (AED) @ 5.5% (levied under Finance Act, 2005) and Education Cess (EC) @ 2% of aggregate of all duties (levied under Finance(No. 2) Act, 2004). Notification … 1. In this application under Section 23C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the CE Act"), the applicant, M/s Surbhi Industries, a

K.M. Siraj Vs. the Regnl. Transport Officer and anr.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 - Sections 3, 4, 4(1), 4(7), 4(8), 6, 7(1), 8, 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5), 8(7), 9, 15, 72, 81, 81(1), 84, 87 and 88(8); Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 4(7), 4(8) and 81; Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 - Sections 8 and 8A; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 58; President of India Act - Sections 9; Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1985 - Sections 3(1); Constitution of India - Articles 19(1), 245, 246, 254, 254(2), 301 and 304

Reported in : 2007(2)KLJ817

of Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, introduced by the Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005, Act 24 of 2005 and Section 15 of the Act are under challenge before us on the ground … the Act are under challenge before us on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are also vitiated by colourable exercise of power and hence unconstitutional … administration of the fund and to supervise or carry out the activities financed from the Fund. As per Section 9 of the Act employer is