Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 1976 section 25 amendment of ninth schedule Sorted by: recent Page 1 of about 11,111 results (0.353 seconds)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2009)222CTR(P& H)427; [2009]308ITR397(P& H)

..... .5. learned counsel for the assessee further contended that investment allowance is allowable to the assessee-company under the provisions of section 32a(2) and this section was amended by the finance (no. 2) act, 1977, with effect from april 1, 1978, relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 for enlarging the scope of the ..... officer came to the conclusion that the allowance was properly claimed and allowed it, he was acting in accordance with law.6. learned counsel for the assessee also referred to the speech of the finance minister, dated march 15,1976, wherein he introduced the investment allowance in place of the 'development rebate' in the following ..... investment allowance will be allowed at the rate of 25 per cent, of the cost of acquisition of new machinery and plant installed after march 31, 1976, in industries currently qualifying for initial depreciation. i also propose to extend the list of qualifying industries by including eight other priority or export-oriented industries, .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Century Flour Mills Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1999]239ITR23(Mad)

..... . valliappa textiles ltd. : [1988]172itr168(kar) .5. we hold that the view of the appellate tribunal that the amendment made by the finance (no. 2) act, 1977, enlarging the scope of section 32a in retrospective operation would apply even for the assessment year 1977-78 is plainly erroneous in law. the amendment makes it clear that it would ..... of installation, the assessee had not manufactured any of the articles specified in the ninth schedule to the act. the ninth schedule was substituted by the eleventh schedule in section 32a of the act by a subsequent amendment made by the finance (no. 2) act, 1977, with effect from april 1, 1978. he, therefore, held that the assessee was not ..... . 2) act, 1977, with effect from april 1, 1978, was retrospective in character and the investment allowance was available for machinery installed on or after march 51, 1976, and the amendment would apply to the assessment year 1977-78 as well.3. the revenue challenged the order of the appellate tribunal and the .....

The Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... till the date on which interest is first due after the date of purchase.5. under the income tax act, 1961 (for short, the it act ), section 18, which was repealed by the finance act, 1988, dealt with tax leviable on the interest on securities. section 19 provided for the deduction of (i) expenses in realising the interest and (ii) the interest payable on ..... in the case of a banking civil appeal no.3291 3294 of 2009, etc. page 3 of 45 company. section 21 provided that the interest payable outside india was not admissible for deduction. sections 18 to 21 were repealed by the finance act, 1988, effective from 1st april 1989. we are dealing with cases involving the period post the deletion of ..... year in question in view of the judgment of the karnataka high court in the case of (commissioner of income tax, mysore v. vijaya bank)5, reported in 1976 tax law reporter page 524. this judgment has been subsequently upheld by the supreme court in 187 i.t.r. page 541. in view of the judgment of the .....

Renjit K.g.. Vs. Sheeba

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... had notice of the pending 8 litigation. at the outset, it appears pertinent to reiterate the settled position that the doctrine of lis pendens as provided under section 52 of the act does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void ab initio, it merely renders rights arising from such transfers as subservient to the rights of the ..... the underlying suit does not automatically render it null and void. on this ground alone, we find the impugned order to be wholly erroneous as it employs section 52 of the act to nullify rsd and on that basis, concludes that the impleadment application is untenable. contrary to this approach of the high court, the law on impleadment ..... a decree holder qua a third party to the suit and the right of a third party after being dispossessed has been laid down by this court in sriram housing finance & investment (india) ltd. v. omesh mishra memorial charitable trust, (2022) 15 scc176:2022. scc online sc794 wherein it was held as follows: 24. on conjoint reading .....

M/s Shriram Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Chennai

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... claim after the revised return was barred by time. this court considered the appellate power of the appellate tribunal under section 254 of the it act. paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision in the case of wipro finance ltd1 read thus:- 10. the learned asg appearing for the department had faintly argued that since the appellant in ..... return of income are mandatory in nature.8. coming to the decision of the tribunal, we find that the tribunal has not exercised its power under section 254 of the it act to consider the claim. instead, the tribunal directed the assessing officer to consider the appellant's claim. the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the ..... by the officials of the appellant. yet, the itat entertained the claim as permissible, even though for the first time before the itat, in appeal under section 254 of the 1961 act, by relying on the dictum of this court in national thermal power co. ltd. further, the itat has also expressly recorded the no objection given .....

Union Of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... period, then the time limit for completion or compliance of such action was extended to 30 june 2021. iii. finance act 2021 10. the finance act 2021 substituted the entire scheme of reassessment under sections 147 to 151 of the income tax act with effect from 1 april 2021. page 41 of 112 part a substantial changes were brought about by the new ..... sc55[6]. 65 (1971) 1 scc453[5]. 66 chhotobhai jethabhai patel v. industrial court, maharashtra, (1972) 2 scc46[16]. 67 superintendent of taxes v. onkarmal nathmal trust, (1976) 1 scc766[28]. 68 dwarka prasad agarwal v. b d agarwal, (2003) 6 scc230[37]. page 62 of 112 part d assessing officers to reassess is limited and based ..... made by parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as president may by order prescribe. 132 jose da costa v. bascora sadasiva sinai narcornim, (1976) 2 scc917[37]. 133 ganga bishan v. jai narain, (1986) 1 scc75[5]. 134 delhi judicial service association v. state of gujarat, (1991) 4 scc406[50]. .....

Chief Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Vs. M/s Safari Ret ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... object is that a registered person does not take advantage of both depreciation and itc.29. now we come to sub-section (4) of section 16. before the amendment made by the finance act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: 16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) a registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect ..... which have been uploaded by the supplier under sub-section (1) of section 37 till the due date for furnishing the details under sub-section (1) of said section for the month of march, 2019. the finance act, 2022, substituted the words due date of furnishing return under section 39 for the month of september with thirtieth day of ..... are based upon the interpretation of the phrase machinery or plant under section 41 of the finance act, 1971 which was applicable and there appears no such distinction for grant of allowance on different heads as provided under section 32 of the income tax act. (7) to differentiate a building for grant of additional depreciation by .....

Khalsa University Vs. The State Of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... . .. for the above reasons, we accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, and hold that section 5 of the second amendment act (act 11 of 1966), introducing section 13-a in the act, is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the constitution and, as such, has to be struck down as unconstitutional ..... laws, life sciences and other courses under the general heads of the arts and humanities, social sciences etc.2. as the establishment of such private self financed universities requires a broadly uniform set of 11 guidelines for ensuring academic standards, prevention of commercialization and mismanagement etc., it deemed, therefore, expedient to provide for ..... charitable society, amritsar,2 (appellant no.2 herein), which was in existence since 1892, submitted a proposal to the state government for setting up a self-financing university in the state of punjab on the basis of the 2010 policy. 3.3. on 5th march 2011, the higher education department, government of punjab .....

Sukanya Shantha Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... (control and reform) act, 1956; section 18, karnataka habitual offenders act, 1961; section 18, kerala habitual offenders act, 1960; section 12, orissa restriction of habitual offenders act, 1952; section 14, rajasthan habitual offenders act, 1953 302 section 6, andhra pradesh habitual offenders act, 1962; section 6, goa, daman and diu habitual offenders act, 1976; section 6, gujarat habitual offenders act, 1959; section 6, bombay habitual offenders act, 1959; section 6, himachal pradesh habitual offenders act, 1969; section 9, jammu and kashmir .....

M/s Sahaj Construction Vs. Union Of India

Court : Karnataka - Dharwad

..... member from bihar stated that while proposal could be considered, however, it should be decided that such an extension in timelines for these financial years under sub-section (10) of section 73 of cgst act is being made for the last time. 4.6. on the basis of all the above submissions, he submits that the extension of time of three ..... no.9/2023 has been issued on the 31.03.2023 on the basis of the recommendation made by the gst council, which has been accepted by the ministry of finance, government of india. 5.2. the government of india having accepted the said recommendation, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the gst council recommendation is not ..... . petitioner (by dr. podar., sri. raghavendra c. r., sri. bhanu murthy j s & sri. veershetty b k .,advocate) and:1. union of india through, the secretary ministry of finance (department of revenue), no.137, north block, new delhi-110001.2. central board of indirect taxes through its chairman, department of revenue, ministry of .....