Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009[16]STR371
V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 131 and 132 of the Finance Act, 1999. By Section 131 of the Finance Act, Clause (xxviii) was inserted in Section 37(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) with effect from 1st March, 1995. By Section 132 of the Finance Act, 1999, Sub-rule 57-F(17) as inserted by Central Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1997 came to be validated from 1st March, 1997 and Clause (e) of Sub-rule (17) inserted by the Central Excise (Elevent Amendment) Rules came to be validated with effect from 1st day of October, 1997. As a result, the credit earned by the petitioners of the duty paid on the inputs used, in, or in relation to the manufacture of final product, namely toothpaste, was made to have lapsed and not to be allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods cleared for home consumption, or for export, except to the extent of the credit of duty, if any, in respect of inputs lying in stock or contai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Mad)62; 2007(121)ECC259; 2007LC259(Madras); 2007[8]STR113; (2007)8VST791(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 by formulating the following Substantial Questions of law for consideration.i) Whether statutory powers of Commissioner to file appeal against an order in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 can be denied for the reason that Commissioner had once accepted the order in appeal ?ii) Whether acceptance of Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner becomes final and binding on the Department and whether the Commissioner can re-examine the order and file appeal under Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 before the CESTAT ?iii) Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the Department's appeal as being one without cause of action, without considering the merits of the matter?2. On the face of the question of law so far formulated, we wonder whether such questions of law arise in this case for resolution by thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(All)301; [1983]142ITR185(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted this statement of the case and has referred several questions of law for our opinion at the instance of the assessee as well as the Revenue. The reference relates to six assessment years from 1964-65 to 1969-70. 2. The assessee is a private limited company. It is a hundred per cent, subsidiary of a foreign company, namely. Orient Carpet . The latter is a company incorporated in England. 3. The assessee-company carries on the business of manufacture and sale of carpets. Almost its entire production of carpets is exported out of India. 4. We shall first take up the question of tax concession and higher rebate on super-tax. 5. It appears that in order to earn more foreign exchange the Govt. of India introduced incentives for encouraging export. One incentive was that the exporters will get import licences for certain items so that they can recoup their losses, if any, which they may have incurred in their export busin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Section 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to "income which does not form part of the total income under this Act." Subsection (2) enables the Assessing Officer to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income in accordance with the method that may be prescribed by the Rules made under the Act if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. By subsection (3), the provisions of subsection (2) are also to apply to a situation in which the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Section 14A was introduced by an amendment to the Finance Act of 2001 with retrospective effect from 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1986)18ITD515(Hyd.)
1. These appeals are by the assessee. As common issues are involved, they are disposed of in a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The first point in dispute is as regards the quantum of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')- The assessee, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corpn., is approved by Central Government, for purposes of Section 36(1)(iii). During the relevant previous years, it had created a special reserve in its accounts and claimed deduction under Section 36(i)(viii) at 40 per cent, viz., 40/100 of its total income. The IAC, however, allowed the claim of the assessee at 40/140 of the total income. The assessee was unsuccessful before the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Before us, it was urged by Shri Y. Ratnakar, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessee is entitled to deduction of 40 per cent of its total income as it had created the necessary special reserve as envisaged in Section 36(1)(viii). The total income i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(Ker)83; [2009]310ITR183(Ker); [2009]181TAXMAN227(Ker)
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Appellant before us is the legal representative of late M.S. Viswambharan. During his lifetime, Viswambharan had called in question Exhibit P5 order passed by the Designated Authority under a scheme, known as 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998'. The other relief that was sought in the writ petition was to quash Exhibit P3 order passed by the assessing authority for the asst. yr. 1984-85 in exercise of his powers under Section 155 of the IT Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short). The last relief that was sought was to direct the first respondent, viz., the Designated Authority, to pass fresh orders on Exhibit P4 declaration in accordance with the provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, treating the petitioner as an assessee in default of payment of tax as if no adjustment of refund is made towards the demand for the asst. yr. 1982-83.2. Late Viswambharan was an assessee under the provisions of the IT Act. He is borne on the files of the 2nd respondent. The assessing auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Reported in : [2010]21STJ214(CESTAT-Bangalore); 2010[18]S.T.R.406; [2010]24STT557; (2010)35VST107(CESTAT-Blore)
ORDERP. Karthikeyan, Member (T)1. These are appeals filed by M/s Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd. (ST/651/08), M/s MSPL Ltd. (ST/691/08, ST/692/08, & ST/652/08), M/s. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Pvt. Ltd. (ST/653/08) and M/s The Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (ST/102/09). The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether the freight paid to owners and operators of trucks for transportation of goods by road is exigible to service tax under the head 'Goods Transport Agency' service.2. The order impugned in Appeal No. ST/651/08 filed by M/s Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd (BIOL) confirmed the following liabilities against it.(i) Service tax Under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 (the Act) Rs. 72,85,191/- and applicable interest.(ii) Penalty Under Section 76 of the Act : Rs. 200/- per day(iii) Penalty Under Section 77 of the Act : Rs. 1000/-(iv) Penalty Under Section 78 of the Act : Rs. 74,30,895/-Period of dispute: 1.1.2005 to 31.3.20063. In the orders impugned in the remai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Reported in : (2006)(111)ECC707
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 212/2004 Central Excise dated 31.12.2004, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. The appellants manufacture refrigerators and plastic molded parts. They appointed M/s BPL Ltd. (herein after referred to as BPL) to act as consignment agent vide agreement dated 21.3.1997 for marketing their goods. BPL agreed to take the following activities for marketing the goods: (b) To sell the products in the name of BPL on behalf of the appellants as a consignment agent at the price fixed by the appellants. (c) Allow discounts to dealers as per market conditions on behalf of the appellants (e) Undertake C & F operation and local deliveries on behalf of the appellants. (b) Sale price of the goods sold would be paid within 45 days of sale (c) Responsibility of shortage/damage on BPL after delivery is taken from the appellants.Further it was agreed that the expenses towards all the above activities including the statuto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)77CTR(Cal)112,[1989]176ITR473(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, Calcutta, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1972-73 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 40(c) and Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that an expenditure incurred by the assessee-company in respect of its employee-directors did not fall for consideration under the latter Section for the purpose of determining the portion of such expenditure which could be disallowed in computing the profits and gains of the assessee's business ?'2. The facts of this case are in a narrow compass. The assessee-company had four directors who were also employees of the assessee-company. In the relevant previous year, they were paid salary and various perquisites. The assessee-company felt that Section 40A(5) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1436; [1963]48ITR154(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR92
S.K. Das, J. 1. This appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay raises a question of interpretation of sub-s. (10) of s. 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This sub-section is one of a group of sub-sections substituted or inserted in the said section by s. 19 of the Finance Act, 1956 (Act 18 of 1956). By s. 28 of the said Finance Act, sub-s (10) of s. 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, came into force on April 1, 1956. The short question before us is, whether on its true construction, sub-s. (10) of s. 35 applies in a case where a company declares dividends by availing itself wholly or partly of the amount on which a rebate of income-tax was earlier allowed to it under clause (i) of the proviso to Paragraph B of Part I of the relevant Schedules to the Finance Acts, when such dividends were declared prior to the coming into force of the sub-section, that is prior to April 1, 1956. 2. The facts which have given rise to the appeal are these. The Ahmedabad ., i...
Tag this Judgment!