Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. Diva Singh, JM - This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 1-2-2002 of CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi pertaining to 1998-99 assessment year.2. The grounds raised by the assessee were argumentative in nature. As such, the assessee was directed to file abridged grounds which were filed on 10-11-2002. In view of the fact that ground No. 12 was neither raised before the CIT(A) nor was it filed before the Tribunal originally, the learned DR took strong objection to adding of this ground in the abridged grounds. The other grounds were not objected to by the learned DR. The grounds raised read as under : "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the appellant company cannot be considered as a non-banking financial company under Section 45-IA of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 when the matter of granting Registration is still pending with Reserve Bank of India, 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi51B; [1972]84ITR451(Delhi)
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the expression 'tax payable' used in section 280Zb of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act' means the tax payable according to the Income-tax Officer upon regular assessment as contended by the respondents or the tax payable upon a self assessment as contended by the petitioner. This section appears in Chapter XXII-B of the Act relating to Tax Credit Certificates. This Chapter comprises of sections 280Y to 280ZE and was inserted by the Finance Act, 1965 with effect from April 1, 1965. The petitioner is a public limited company and carries on business. inter alia, of the manufacture and sale of cement and refractories etc. It manufactures and produces articles which are mentioned in the 1st Schedule to the .Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. The respondents to the petition are the Central Board of Direct Taxes (respondent No. 1); the Commissioner of Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This is a batch of twenty one (21) appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Eleven (11) of these have been filed by assessees and ten (10) by the revenue. Eight of these appeals - four by assessees and four by the revenue -- have been admitted and questions have been framed in them. The other appeals were tagged along therewith. It was, however, clearly understood by all the counsel appearing on both sides that the appeals which had not been formally admitted would be deemed to have been admitted for hearing and it was on this basis that arguments were addressed. All these appeals are concerned with section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In particular, we are called upon to examine as to whether interest paid on funds borrowed for investing in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) and is not hit by section 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:01. 02.2013 W.P.(C) 4456/2012 & C.M.No.9237/2012( for stay) DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SOCIETY (REGD.) .......Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .......Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Sumeet Pushkarna, CGSC with Mr Varun Dubey, Adv. for R-1/ UOI. Mr Anshuman Chowdhury, Sr. Standing Counsel for Comm/S.Tax CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V.EASWAR, J The petitioner is an association of Chartered Accountants, registered as a society in Delhi. The matter arises under the service tax provisions which were brought into force by the Finance Act, 1994. The prayer in this petition is for (a) quashing of the circular No.158/9/2012ST dated 08.05.2012 and circular No.154/5/2012-ST dated 28.03.2012 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and/ or the provisions of the Finance Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)LC176Tri(Delhi)
1. Shree Ganpati Synthetics, M/s. Narinder Paper Mills and M/s. Behal Spg. Mills have filed appeals along-with stay petitions praying for staying the operation and implementation of order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. None appears for the appellants. We have perused the evidence on record, the adjudication order and the relevant sections of the Finance Act and Rules framed for the purpose of Service Tax. We note that the amount of duty has not so far been quantified, therefore, the stay petitions are dismissed as being premature.3. Since the issue is that of interpretation and is covered by the law explicitly, we proceeded to decide the appeals themselves.4. The facts of the cases are that Service Tax at the rate of 5% was introduced on Goods Transport Operator Services. SCNs were issued demanding Service Tax during the period 16-11-97 to 2-6-98. In the meantime the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti v.UOI held the relevant provisions as ultra vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1986)57CTR(Del)40; [1987]166ITR497(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. A piece of land, bearing No. 126, Raja Garden, New Delhi, was sold by Rattan Chand Sood to Om Prakash under a sale deed dated February 28, 1973, for a consideration, stated in the sale deed, to be Rs. 19,992. Om Prakash in turn sold the property to Piara Singh by a sale deed dated July 20, 1973, for Rs. 47,000. Piara Singh, in his turn put up a construction on the plot and transferred the plot and the building to Mool Chand Nayyar and Bimla Devi under two sale deeds dated April 30, 1975, for a consideration of Rs. 48,000 each. 2. In respect of the first of the above sales, viz, the one dated February 28, 1973, a notice under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Official Gazette on July 28, 1973. Subsequently, notices were also served on the transferee (namely, Om Prakash) as well as tenant who was stated to be in possession of the property, one Shri Kharbanda. In the course of these proceedings, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1983]141ITR740(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) It is not necessary to State the facts at great length because the question referred to us raises a very narrow issue. 'The respondent assessed compaay, which was engaged in the business of financing, filed an estimate of advance tax, according to which the tax payable in advance was nil. Though the assessed had income of Rs. 11,50,000, it claimed that it had incurred loss in business amounting to Rs- 1,60,000 and that since all the income was the income on which tax had been deducted at source, the advance tax payable was nil. The estimate had been filed during the calendar year 1966 in respect of the assessment year 1967-78. The Income Tax Officer, however, completed the assessment on 8 total income of Rs. 16,97,370 (which was reduced by the Appellate assistant Commissioner to Rs. 13,95,256) and eventually the tax payable -by the assessed, after deducting the tax payments at source, came to Rs. 1,34,068. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC353
1. Shree Ganpati Synthetics, M/s. Narinder Paper Mills and M/s. Behal Spg. Mills have filed appeals along with stay petitions praying for staying the operation and implementation of order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. None appears for the appellants. We have perused the evidence on record, the adjudication order and the relevant sections of the Finance Act and Rules framed for the purpose of Service Tax. We note that the amount of duty has not so far been quantified, therefore, the stay petitions are dismissed as being pre-mature.3. Since the issue is that of interpretation and is covered by the law explicitly, we proceeded to decide the appeals themselves.4. The facts of the cases are that Service Tax at the rate of 5% was introduced on Goods Transport Operator Services. SCNs were issued demanding Service Tax during the period 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. In the meantime the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti v.Union of India, held the relevant provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 02.2013 CEAC 16 2012 WIPRO LIMITED ..... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Devnath, Mr Aditya Bhattacharya, Mr Abhishek Anand & Mr Bhuvnesh Satijha, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Satish Kr. Senior Standing Counsel for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J This is an appeal by Wipro Ltd., which was formerly known as Wipro BPO Solutions. It was at the material time engaged in the rendering of IT-enabled services such as technical support services, backoffice services, customer-care services etc. to its various clients all of whom were situated outside India, i.e., in UK, USA and Australia.2. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the Central Excise & Service CEAC 16 2012 Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in order ST/593/2011(PB) on 05.10.2011, in Appeal No. ST/66/2008. On 12....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:08. 03.2017 Pronounced on:30. 03.2017 + W.P.(C) 11216/2016 KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. ACTING THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. P. VARADARAJAN ..... Appellant Through: Sh. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Sh. Jitendra Ratta and Ms. Jasmine Kottai, Advocates. Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS. Through: Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Puneet Rai, Jr. Standing Counsel. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner impugns an order dated 16th September 2016 of the third respondent which failed to give credit for advance tax deposited for AY20102011 and AY20162017 and tax deducted at source (TDS) to a total extent of ` 16.49 crores.2. The petitioner-company incorporated under the Companies Act, has its registered office at Chennai. It has been filing its Return of Income till the financia...
Tag this Judgment!