Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All37; [1965]57ITR749(All)
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the levy of additional Surcharge According to the petitioner the additional Surcharge is hit by Articles 14 and 271 of the Constitution of India it is, also, according to him hit by Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution 2. Elaborating these grounds, Mr Copal Behari referred to Article 271, which contemplates according to him, additional income-tax in the shape of additional surcharge, which can be levied only once and not time and again calling it at one time ''Special Surcharge' and at another 'addtional Surcharge' in the present case, the in come-tax Officer determined the tax payable under Section 210 of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the payment of Rs. (108.64 nP as Income-tax, Rs. 264.32 nP Additional Surcharge, Rs. 50.77 nP Surcharge and Rs. 2.13 Special Surcharge totalling Rs 905.87 Np 3. The first question to be examined, there tore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1988(18)ECC69; 1988(17)LC691(Kerala); 1988(38)ELT14(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The challenge in this original petition is to the demand for excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act) for matches cleared by the petitioner during the period June 19,1980 to March 31,1981. The demand has been made without giving the petitioner the benefit of the concessional rate of Rs. 1.60 per gross of fifty's, as per Notification No. 99 of 1980 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The circumstances leading to the filing of the Original Petition are as follows :-2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of safety matches. The Government of India issued Notification No. 99 of 1980 on June 19, 1980 reducing the rate of duty payable for safety matches manufactured and cleared by small scale units. A copy of this notification is Ext. P1, The availability of the concession was subject to various conditions, as detailed in the various provisions in the notification. The petitioner satisfied these conditions and was theref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2001]252ITR227(Delhi); [2001]118TAXMAN585(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to give rebate in the tax payable to the extent of Rs. 67,785 for the amount deposited in the IDBI in lieu of surcharge in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(6) and (8) of the Finance Act, 1976, although for the assessment year 1978-79 tax was to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1978, which did not provide for such concession ?'2. The dispute, as the question itself indicates, relates to the assessment year 1978-79.3. The factual position, which is almost undisputed, is essentially as follows :For the assessment year in questi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000IIAD(Delhi)363; 2000(52)DRJ544; 2000(67)ECC749
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B. 2. Since a short question of law is involved and there is not much controversy on facts, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage itself. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of : (i) a letter dated 9th March, 1999 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (T), Central Excise, Delhi - respondent No. 3 herein, returning the declaration dated 21st January 1999, pertaining to the additional excise duty demand (Rs.19,29,642/-) for the period from 1st September, 1995 to 31st January, 1998, filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (for short 'the KVSS') on the ground that no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner for the amount mentioned in the declaration and (ii) a demand cum show cause notice dated 16th March, 1999 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range Pan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The matter involved in this appeal relates to payment of service tax on services rendered by goods transport operators which is demanded from the Appellant as receiver of the service as per provisions of Rule 2 (d) (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules 1994, during the period 16-11-97 to 02-06-98. The Show Cause Notice in this matter was issued on 08-11-02. 2. Subsequently a corrigendum to the notice was issued on 02-11-2004 pointing out the retrospective amendment made in Finance Act, 1994 by Finance Act 2003 and the prospective amendment in section 73 of Finance Act 1994 made by Finance Act 2004. Finally the notice was adjudicated confirming demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1466.73 lakhs with interest and penalties under different sections of Finance Act, 1994. 3. Before the year 2000, an issue came up that Rule 2 (d) (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 was ultra virus the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 in as much as the Act provided for demanding duty on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1981]130ITR631(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), pursuant to the order passed by this court under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in O.P. No. 5407 of 1975 filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions contained in the First Schedule, Part I, Paragraph F(I)(B) read with Explanation 1 and other relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1966, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions relating to the levy of additional tax under the Finance Act, 1966, are not attracted ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company in liquidation. The company was engaged in the business of exploitation of minerals in Kcrala. It declared for the first time a dividend in the year ended March 31, 1960, which was distributed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1985)14ITD27(Ahd.)
1. The common issue in all these appeals relates to the valuation of properties. Taking the first and second appeals, the WTO valued a bunglow called 'Shalimar' situated in Shahi Baug, Ahmedabad, for wealth-tax purposes at Rs. 15,48,600 and Rs. 10,90,000 as against the value offered for assessment by the assessee of Rs. 3,95,260 and Rs. 2,72,700, respectively. For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, the same issue came up on appeal before the Commissioner who accepted the assessee's contention that the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') would be applicable to all the assessment years including those even prior to the assessment year 1976-77. He also held that the value to be adopted for the assessment purposes is the market value of the property as arrived at for the assessment year 1971-72. In disposing of the above appeals, he followed a decision of his for the earlier years. He, accordingly, directed the WTO to adopt the value of the property at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
1. In this appeal directed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 5-2-2004 in the matter of block assessment made Under Section 158BC(c) of the IT.Act, by the A.O for the block period 1-4-1990 to 9-11-2000 the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal. 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in passing the order confirming the addition of Rs. 18,80,870. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in adding buck the amount of Rs 18,80,870 being losses incurred by the appellant. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has (ailed to appreciate the provisions of Section 158BB(i)(c) of the Act regarding set off of losses during the block period in true and natural spirit. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing sol off of losses without giving proper reasoning for the same.2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid grounds of appeal may be set out as under. The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of Mr. Rajan H. Khinvasara and Mr. H. Khinvasara as partners sharing profits and losses equally. The firm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8750 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.540 of 2009) |COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX | | |(CENTRAL)-I, NEW DELHI |..APPELLANT(S) | | | | |VERSUS | | |VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED |..RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.8764 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.1362 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8762 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 (C) No.31528 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8775 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.22444 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8779 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.27162 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8780 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.27413 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8774 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.20855 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8765 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.4769 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8760 OF20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4928 OF2018Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Appellant Versus M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, West Block No.2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CESTAT) in Appeal No.ST/136/2007, by which the learned CESTAT has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has set aside the demand towards the service tax by holding that the services rendered by the 1 respondent Consulting Engineer Service were not subjected to service tax, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.2. That the respondent herein M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation is a Government of China company incorporated in the Republic of China, having its office at S...
Tag this Judgment!