Excise Officer - Judgment Search Results

District Excise Officer Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)68TTJ(Del)436

.2. The facts in brief as gathered from the order of the assessing officer are that the District Excise Officer, Muzaffarnagar (referred to hereinafter as DETO) was required to furnish half-yearly returns to the prescribed authority within the … Act as contended by the learned authorised representative. The assessed as contemplated in section 246(1)(a) is not District Excise Officer who is a person collecting the purchase price and then making part of the same towards tax. He

District Excise Officer and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalawati Hari Singh Choudhar ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2001(4)WLC60; 2007(2)WLN472

as to avoid from causing any loss to them. The dispute arose when the defendant No. 1 (District Excise Officer Sawaimadhopur) issued notice dated 22.10.1999 for change of the sanctioned location of liquor shops of Gehroli and Kherali … (1) provides that an appeal shall lies (a) to the Excise Commissioner from any order passed by an Excise Officer under the Excise Act and (b) to the Divisional Commissioner of the area appointed under Section 17 of

District Excise Officer, Vs. Income Tax Officer (ito V. Distt.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)66ITD168(Delhi)

the Act is appealable or not.8. Recalling facts in brief, the ITO (TDS) Dehradun found that the District Excise Officer had not collected tax on basic fee (issue price) on sale of alcoholic liquors for human consumption (other … dt. 12th June, 1996. After procuring the explanation of the party in detail, he held that the District Excise Officer had failed to collect tax at source and to pay it to the credit of the Central Government

District Excise Officer Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Delhi)770

Act is appealable or not.Recalling facts in brief, the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Dehradun found that the District Excise Officer had not collected tax on basic fee (issue price) on sale of alcoholic liquors for human consumption (Other … the order dated 12-6-1996. After procuring the explanation of the party in detail, he held that the District Excise Officer had failed to collect tax at source and to pay it to the credit of the Central Government

District Excise Officer, Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

of convenience.2. The facts in brief as gathered from the order of the AO are that the District Excise Officer, Muzaffarnagar (referred to hereinafter as DETO) was required to furnish half-yearly returns to the prescribed authority within the … Act as contended by the learned authorised representative. The assessee as contemplated in s. 246(1)(a) is not District Excise Officer who is a person collecting the purchase price and then making part of the same towards tax. He

District Excise Officer Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

31, 2001, in relation to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1997-98 except 1994-95 in relation to the District Excise Officer, Muzaffarnagar, and in relation to the assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97 for the District Excise Officer, Saharanpur. Since … the District Excise Officer, Muzaffarnagar, and in relation to the assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97 for the District Excise Officer, Saharanpur. Since all these appeals are based on identical facts and common grounds of appeal, we are therefore

Lakshmi NaraIn and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. District Excise Officer, Fatehpu ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1978SC1476; [1979]1SCR161

Matched in: Parties Lakshmi NaraIn and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. District Excise Officer, Fatehpur and ors. Etc. Etc.

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. District Excise Officer

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: [2006]284ITR22(Uttaranchal)

of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)'), and allowed the appeals filed by the District Excise Officer, Dehradun, and recorded his finding that the assessee is not an assessee in default under Section 206C of … order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and held that there were no liability cast on the District Excise Officer to deduct TDS on the bid money and deleted the interest charged under Section 206C(7) of the Act.5.

Har Gopal Jaiswal Vs. District Excise Officer, Kanpur Nagar and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2380; (2000)2UPLBEC1734

Matched in: Parties Har Gopal Jaiswal Vs. District Excise Officer, Kanpur Nagar and Others

N. Anandurai Vs. Divisional Excise Officer, Karur

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1998(1)CTC40; (1998)IMLJ561

Matched in: Parties N. Anandurai Vs. Divisional Excise Officer, Karur