Advanced Search Results

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. MartIn Lottery Agencies Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service Tax

Acts : Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 9(1), 65, 65(19), 65(50), 65(105), 66, 68 and 271; Finance Act, 2003 - Sections 65 and 65A; Finance Act, 2008; Finance Act, 1983; Lottery (Regulation) Act, 1998 - Sections 4; Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Sections 2 and 2(7); Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 2; Income-tax Act - Sections 22; Constitution of India - Articles 19, 162, 245 and 246, 268A and 298

Reported in : (2009)223CTR(SC)321; JT2009(11)SC151; 2009(7)SCALE341(1); (2009)12SCC209; [2009]17STJ237(SC); 2009[14]STR593; [2009]20STT203; 2009(6)LC2739(SC); (2009)24VST1(SC); 2009AIRSCW5301; [2009] 7 SCR 946

under the contract of sale.9. After the Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court, the Parliament by Finance Act, 2008 inserted an explanation in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 65(19), which came into force on or about 16.5.2008 and

Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs. Anil Hastkala (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Raj)417; [2010]186TAXMAN365(Raj)

tried to convince that once orders of settlement commission are not legally sustainable as per amendment made under Finance Act, 2007 being enforced w.e.f. 01/06/07, proceedings stand abated in terms of Section 245-HA as a consequence whereof, matter … Commission has till 26/03/2008 received more than 324 orders from various High courts in the month of March, 2008, directing the Principal Bench to complete the cases by 31/03/2008.4. This would involve more than 1500 assessments. The … Bairwa : 2009(4) SCC 299, Chiranjilal v. Jasjit Singh : 1993(2) SCC 507 & AR Antulay v. RS Nayak : 1988(2) SCC 602.21. Counsel for

K. Arumugam Etc. Etc. Vs. Union Of India And Ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 65(19)(ii) introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 16.05.2008. The appellant in this case was appointed as the exclusive statutory marketing agent by … credit in a provident fund account has also been held to be an actionable claim (Official Trustee v. L. Chippendale [AIR1944Cal 335 : ILR (1943) 2 Cal 325]. ; Bhupati Mohan Das v. Phanindra Chandra Chakravarty [AIR1935Cal

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oscar Laboratories (P) Ltd.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2009)222CTR(P& H)546

appeals, were granted statutory status with the insertion of Section 268A into the IT Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1999. The second contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee … clarification seven), wherein monetary limits of Rs. 25,000 for Departmental appeals (in income-tax matters) before the Tribunal, Rs. 50,000 for filing reference to the High Court and Rs. 1,50,000 for filing appeal to the Supreme Court were

Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct TaxationConstitution

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 30(2), 80HHC, 90, 139, 143(1), 143(2), 144, 147, 148, 158B, 162, 164(2), 234A, 240, 256(1), 256(2), 260A, 269SS, 270, 271, 271(1), 271(1B), 271(5), 271D, 273, 273(2), 273B, 274, 275, 276C; Finance Act, 2008; Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987; Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 22(1), 22(2), 23, 28, 28(1), 28(2), 28(6) and 34; Finance Act, 1964; Taxation Laws (Amendment in Misc. Provisions) Act, 1986; Wealth Tax Act; Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services, Common/ Combined Examination Act, 2002; Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959; Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Repeal) Act, 1989 - Sections 26; Army Act, 1950; Bombay Sales Tax Rules; Army Rules; Constitution of Ind

Reported in : (2009)225CTR(Del)1; [2009]317ITR107(Delhi); [2009]183TAXMAN100(Delhi)

vires the Constitution of India. The impugned provision which was brought on to the statute book by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from (w.r.e.f.) 01.04.1989, has resulted in a grievance in so far as the petitioners/assessees are … Rajiv Shakdher, J1. The captioned writ petitions lay challenge to the provisions of Section 271(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the =Act) on the ground that it … made the following main prayers in their respective writ petitions:Writ petition No. 5059/2008i) That the impugned Sub-section (1B) of Section 271 of the Act may

Commr.of Income Tax-i,new Delhi Vs. Vatika Township P.Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was inserted in that Section by the Finance Act, 2002 is to operate prospectively or is clarificatory and curative in nature and, therefore, has retrospective operation. The … OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.1339 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8773 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.19319 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8763 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.1342 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8755 OF2014(arising out of SLP … of every legal rule as was observed in the decision reported in L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co.Ltd[4].. Thus, legislations which modified accrued

M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

amount of Rs.2,04,39,093/- under provisions of Rule 14 of the Credit Rules read with Section 73 of the Finance Act,1994. In respect of towers and parts thereof, prefabricated building, printers and office chairs, the Commissioner observed that the … 2005 three further show cause cum demand notices were issued issued covering the period October 2005 to March 2008 dated 23.4.2007, 8.2.2008 and 23.10.2008 making an aggregate demand of Rs.15,40,63,898/- as also interest and equivalent penalty was … Mehra Brothers Vs. Joint Commercial Officer, Madras, (1991)1 Supreme Court Cases 514) 50. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara-I, (2009(235) ELT

Ajay Kumar Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

This Court notes that after this judgment which was delivered on 11.03.2009, the Notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 18.11.2009 was gazetted. 10. The Notification dated 18.11.2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue … and ill-founded. To support this submission reliance has been placed upon AIR 2008 SC 1720 Micheal Raj Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau. The second … HC Mahesh (PW-11) and SI Bhagwan Singh (PW-12). Before search of the accused had been effected, notice under Section 50 of the said Act (Ex.PW-3/A) was served upon him. He was informed that he could get his search

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Service Tax

Credit Rules, 2004 iii. When the amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2010 is optional to the respondent and the respondent has to opt to avail the benefit provided in … on the following substantial questions of law : "i. When the Notification No.10/2008 CE (NT) dated 1st March 2008 brought the amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1st April 2008, … Salem-1. .. Appellant Vs M/s.Burn Standard Co.Ltd., Salem-5. .. Respondent APPEAL under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order No.609

Yfc Projects P.Ltd. Vs. Uoi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

the constitutional validity of Section 65(105) (zzd), Section 65 (105) (zzq) and Section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. The prayers made in YFC Projects Pvt. Ltd. are as under:“A) Issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or … involved in works/composite contracts and it is levied @ 2%, enhanced to 4% with effect from 1st March, 2008. The said levy is not applicable to services covered under Section 65(105)(zzq) and (zzzh). (ix) There is a … of ready-mix Concrete (RMC), which is covered under the Tariff Item No.3824 50 10 by specifying Nil rate of duty of excise under the Central