Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 1342/2008 YFC PROJECTS P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 859/2008 G.D.BUILDTECH P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 4116/2008 VISTAR CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 6058/2008 SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS (INDIA)(P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6803/2013 NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CIROIRATUIB KUNUTED (NBCC) ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ANR WP(C) 1342/2008 & Ors. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr J.K. Mittal with Mr Varun Gaba. For the Respondents : Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Mukesh Anand, Standing Counsel, Ms Anjana Gosain and Mr Ashish Virmani for R-1/UOI in these writ petitions. Ms Sonia Sharma with Mr Sonakshi Dhiman for R-2 in WP(C) Nos.6058/2008 & 6803/2013. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 1342/2008 YFC PROJECTS P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 859/2008 G.D.BUILDTECH P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 4116/2008 VISTAR CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 6058/2008 SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS (INDIA)(P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6803/2013 NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CIROIRATUIB KUNUTED (NBCC) ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ANR WP(C) 1342/2008 & Ors. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr J.K. Mittal with Mr Varun Gaba. For the Respondents : Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Mukesh Anand, Standing Counsel, Ms Anjana Gosain and Mr Ashish Virmani for R-1/UOI in these writ petitions. Ms Sonia Sharma with Mr Sonakshi Dhiman for R-2 in WP(C) Nos.6058/2008 & 6803/2013. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 1342/2008 YFC PROJECTS P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 859/2008 G.D.BUILDTECH P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 4116/2008 VISTAR CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 6058/2008 SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS (INDIA)(P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6803/2013 NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CIROIRATUIB KUNUTED (NBCC) ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ANR WP(C) 1342/2008 & Ors. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr J.K. Mittal with Mr Varun Gaba. For the Respondents : Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Mukesh Anand, Standing Counsel, Ms Anjana Gosain and Mr Ashish Virmani for R-1/UOI in these writ petitions. Ms Sonia Sharma with Mr Sonakshi Dhiman for R-2 in WP(C) Nos.6058/2008 & 6803/2013. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1975]99ITR243(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These two references relate to the same assessee but in respect of two different assessment years. The first reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64, and the second relates to the assessment year1964-65. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in motor and general insurance. The previous years relevant to the assessment years in question are calendar years 1962 and 1963, respectively. In respect of these assessment years the assessee filed the returns of income showing income from different sources separately. The total of such income for the assessment year 1963-64 came to Rs. 22,15,583. This income included a sum of Rs. 4,85,802 being the income from dividends from other companies. The assessee claimed that it is entitled to a rebate of Corporation tax at 45% on this dividend income as per the Finance Act, 1963. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that, since in the case of an insurance company the entire income is assessed as from bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)14STJ54CESTAT(Chennai)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the issue arising for consideration in this case is already covered by orders of this and other Benches of the Tribunal. The issue is whether the appellants were liable to pay service tax on GTO service during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. They had received the said service during the said period but had not paid any service tax thereon.However, the service tax returns for the said period were filed and the tax paid within the period of time prescribed for the purpose under the Finance Act, 2003. Such payment of tax was made under protest. Later on, it appears, the party filed a refund claim, which is not a part of the subject-matter of the present case. In a show-cause notice dated 09.07.2002 (issued prior to the aforesaid payment of service tax), the department demanded service tax for the aforesaid period and proposed to impose penalties on the party. The demands were contested. The original authority in adju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]56ITR114(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner, National Rayon Corporation Ltd., a public limited company, seeks to get quashed by a writ of certiorari the order made by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle I(3), Bombay, the respondent hereto, on the 29th of January, 1963, in exercise of his powers under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. Facts in brief are : In the assessment year 1956-57, the previous year being calendar year 1955, the income-tax of the assessee-company on its total income was computed at nil and the previous loss was ordered to be carried forward. The assessment order for the assessment year 1956-57 was made on February 17, 1958. In the previous year relating to the assessment year 1956-57, however the petitioner-company had declared dividends amounting to Rs. 15,77,340 on its ordinary subscribed share capital of Rs. 1,57,71,400. The declared divide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994, is directed against an order dated 18th November 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal Nos.54595-54597 of 2014. 2. Admit. 3. The following question of law is framed: Was the CESTAT justified in granting to the Respondent the benefit of payment of reduced penalty to the extent of 25% in terms of the 3rd proviso to Section 78 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 (as it stood prior to its substitution by the Finance Act 2015) within 30 days from the date of the order of the CESTAT? 4. This Court has heard the submissions of Ms Sonia Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms Kavita Jha, learned counsel for the Respondent. 5. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Respondent, Tops Security Limited, is engaged in the business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)25CTR(Guj)263
Mankad, J. 1. The assessee, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufacrture of cotton textiles at Ahmedabad. The assessee-company effected exports out of India of various products manufactured by it during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. It claimed the benefit of deduction admissible to assessees whose total income includes any profits or gains derived from exports under s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1964-65 and under s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1965, for the assessment year 1965-66. Both these provisions are in identical terms. The question which is raised in these references is whether the assessee-company is entitled to claim such deduction or rebate, even though the assessee-company, which has not maintained separate accounts pertaining to the export business, is unable to establish that the export business resulted in any profit whatsoever. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Mad)178
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. T.C. 83 of 1998 is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax with reference to the assessment year 1988-89 of the assessee. The question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Wealth Tax Act reads as under:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth tax within the meaning of Section 40(3)(vi) of Finance Act, 1983?2. T.C. 230 of 1998 is a reference at the instance of the assessee and the question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87 reads as under:-Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the building Asoka Plaza is not to be treated as 'plant' of the applicant's business of real estate developing and managing office and commercial complexes duly authorised by the applicant's Memorand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : LC(2007)(3)269
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-m, Chennai in ITA Nos. 173 and 174/2006-07 dt. 4th Oct., 2006. The assessments were framed by the Asstt. CIT, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai for the asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 vide his both orders dt. 27th March, 2006 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Since the issue is found to be common, both the appeals were elaborately heard together and for the sake of convenience and brevity, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only issue in these two appeals of the assessee is whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) or not in the given facts and circumstances.3. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the assessee is not pressing the first ground of the appeal regarding issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and hence, he is withdrawing this ground. The learned Depar...
Tag this Judgment!