Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. After the decision of the Union Cabinet dated 02.11.2000, whereby 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting was permitted in India, prohibition on the reception and distribution of television signals in Ku Band was withdrawn by the Department of Telecommunications, through a notification dated 09.01.2001. In order to give effect to the decision of the Cabinet, as also, the notification issued by the Department of Telecommunications, referred to above, guidelines dated 15.03.2001 were issued laying down the procedure for obtaining licences for providing 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting service in India on 15.03.2001. In the aforesaid guidelines, the conditions of eligibility were also prescribed.2. In so far as the procedural aspect of the matter is concerned, interested parties were to be required to submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. If the applicant was found eligible (for setting up a 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) platform in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2008)17VST18(NULL)
B.S. Verma, J.1. Since the controversy including the legal issue involved in these writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the three writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.2. The writ petition No. 1683 of 2007 (M/S) has been filed for the following reliefs:(a) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the circular dated January 13, 2006 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Dehradun, respondent No. 2, as well as the circular dated January 4, 2006 issued by respondent No. 1;(b) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the notice dated January 20, 2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), respondent No. 3;(c) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued restraining/prohibiting respondent No. 3 from imposing any tax upon the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 on the sales made by the petitioner wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.S. Verma, J.(Stay Application No. 4458 of 2010)1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 26-05-2010 issued by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-9).ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the impugned notification dated 26-05-2010 ultra vires the powers of the State Govt. under Right to Information Act.iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.iv) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.3. By the impugned Notification dated 26-5-2010, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand has been notified Public Authority unit for the Urban Cooperative Banks Ltd. by making amendment in the earlier notification dated 5t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2008)13VST245(NULL)
P.C. Verma, J.1. This revision under Section 11 of the Uttaranchal Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') has been filed against the judgment and order dated April 21, 2005 passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 2 of 2004, by which the appeal filed by the appellant/revisionist was rejected and the order of the Commissioner, Trade Tax cancelling the eligibility certificate granted to the applicant by the Joint Director, Industries, Pauri Garhwal through office memorandum dated 4384/90 dated December 31, 2002, was affirmed.2 The facts of the case, in brief, are that the erstwhile manufacturer M/s. R.L. Steels Pvt. Ltd., established a new unit on April 26, 1997 by taking a term loan from U.P. Finance Corporation (UPFC) at Jashodharpur Industrial area, Kotdwara (District Pauri Garhwal). The Divisional Level Committee granted the exemption to the said unit under Notification No. 780 dated March 31, 1995 for a period of twelve years from the date of first sales, i.e., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Uttranchal)393
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the order dated 03.12.2004, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as CESTAT), whereby Appeal No. ST/69/04-NB(S), filed by the assessee was allowed.2. Following substantial question of law has been raised by the Revenue in this appeal:Whether, the penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of default in submitting ST-3 return for period prior to 31.03.2000, even though the same was filed on 23.01.2002 i.e. long after the amendment in the Statute with retrospective effect came into force vide Finance Act, 20003. We Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-assessee M/s Maha Laxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd., Iqbalpur, Haridwar are manufacturers of sugar, and also engaged in the business of providing service of transport of goods. The assessee has service ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(Uttranchal)670; [2005]278ITR47(Uttaranchal)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dated February 28, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 1723/Delhi of 1995.2. Mr. B. Bruson, the respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Reading and Bates Exploration Co., which in the year under consideration executed contracts in India. During the year under consideration, the respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.The questions raised before us are as follows :Questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the salary paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to the Indian Income-tax Act in terms of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has itself held, vide ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The controversy in the instant central excise appeal revolves around exemption claimed by the appellant under notifications bearing Nos. 49/2003-Central Excise and 50/2003-Central Excise, both dated 10.06.2003. The aforesaid two notifications are similarly worded. Relevant extract thereof (for adjudication of the present controversy) is being extracted hereunder:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in the Schedule appended hereto, other than the goods specified in the Annexure appended hereto; and cleared from a unit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2004)186CTR(Uttranchal)144; [2003]264ITR320(Uttaranchal)
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.1. This batch of appeals involved a common question of law and fact and therefore they are decided all together by this common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, we are mentioning hereinbelow the facts in I. T. A. No. 57 of 2002.Facts :3. Ronald Grey, the assessee, entered into a contract for employment with Sedco Forex International Drilling Company (hereinafter referred to as the said company) incorporated in Panama. The assessee was the resident of the U. K. Under the contract he was required to work on oil rigs in Bombay High as per alternating time schedule of 35/28 days, i.e., on period followed by 35/ 28 days of off period in the U. K. Before the Assessing Officer it was contended, on behalf of the assessee, that off period salary was not exigible to tax under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act as it was not earned in India. It was argued that the field break which followed the on period was not a rest period. The Assessing Officer rejected this contention. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2008)218CTR(Uttranchal)7; [2009]313ITR140(Uttaranchal); [2009]178TAXMAN453(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, by the Revenue, is directed against the order dt. 7th April, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (hereinafter referred as Tribunal'), in IT Appeal No. 3506/Del/2003, relating to asst. yr. 1998-99, whereby the appeal of the respondent/assessee, was partly allowed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that assessment in the present case of the respondent/assessee M/s Desh Rakshak Aushdhalaya Ltd., Kankhal, Haridwar, was completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 16th Oct., 2000, in which the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,98,924 as per the provisions of Section 2(24) of the Act, on account of delay in depositing said amount in relation to the employees contribution towards PF/EPF by the employer into the credit of Central Government account, and denied deduction under Section 43B of the Act. Respondent/assessee preferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Uttranchal)66; [2005]277ITR253(Uttaranchal)
1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated March 26, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 1524/Delhi of 2000.2. Reading and Bates Drilling Company, the appellant, is a non-resident foreign company. During the year under consideration, the said nonresident company executed offshore drilling contracts in India. Reading and Bates Drilling Company employed technicians to work in offshore oil rigs in India. Mr. Daniel Gates was such a technician employed by the appellant-company during the relevant previous year to work in the offshore oil rigs in India.3. The question raised before us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the 'off-period' salary paid to the petitioner was liable to tax in India ?'4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.5. As this court has dis...
Tag this Judgment!