Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET ITA191OF2009IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PIU GHOSH Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-52 & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 12th July, 2016. For Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharadwaj,Advocate Mr.B.Sengupta,Advocate For Revenue/Respondent : Mr.M.P.Agarwal,Advocate Mr.P.Dhudhoria,Advocate The Court : The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgement and order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata in ITA NO.1586/Kol/2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06, by which an appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed. The question formulated on 12th August, 2009 when the appeal was admitted reads as follows : Whether the Tribunal below substantially erred in law in applying provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present case pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)214CTR(Mad)173
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue raises the following question of law viz:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the time-limit prescribed for issue of a notice under Section 143(2) in respect of a return filed under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act or a return filed in pursuance to a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act will apply to a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act2. The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1996-97. It is seen that the assessee filed her return of income on 16th July 1998. It is seen that pursuant to the notice under Section 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 16th July 1998. The original assessment under Section 143(3) in respect of the assessee's husband was completed on 31.3.1999. It was noticed during the course of assessment proceedings that the applicant and her husband had jointly purchased a property on 26.10.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
This appeal was filed by the proprietor of Hotel Alankar. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of his for adjournment. 2. On a perusal of the records, I find that, in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 6.1.2009, the original authority had passed the following order: 1. I confirm the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,96,184/- (ST-192161+E.Cess-4022) as detailed in Annexure-I to this order, towards service tax not paid under Section 66 of Finance Act, 1944. I further, appropriate the amount of Rs.1,96,184/- from the amount already paid i.e., Rs.3,69,459/- paid by the assessee on 8.11.2008 and 19.12.2008. 2. I also confirm the demand of interest of Rs.59,678/- on the service tax payable @ 13% PA till the date of actual payment as detailed in the annexure-I to this order. I further appropriate the amount of Rs.59,678/- from amount already paid i.e., Rs.3,69,459/- paid by the assessee on 8.12.2008 and 19.12.2008. 3. I refrain from imposing any pena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)1
1. Since common issues are involved, all these four appeals filed by the assessee are directed to be disposed of by a common order.2. The first ground in appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99 is against the disallowance of the licence fee amounting to Rs. 271,10,91,600 paid by the assessee to the Department of Telecommunication (DoT).3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a public sector corporation incorporated on 28th Feb., 1986, for providing telecommunication services. It took over the management, control and operation of Delhi and Mumbai telecommunication Districts w.e.f. 1st April, 1986. The DoT in exercise of the power of the Central Government conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, granted licence vide letter No. 1-101/85-MTAC/PHB, dt. 27th March, 1986, to establish, maintain and work telecommunication services within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Delhi and areas covered by the Municipal Corporation of Bomb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2006)200CTR(Ker)591; 2006(1)KLT128; 2006[4]STR429
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common petitioner in these three cases is engaged in supply of food and beverage to Air Companies for in flight service to passengers. Exhibit P4 under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 8238/2005 is issued by the Central Excise Department holding that petitioner is liable to get registered and pay service tax under Sections 65 & 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 10-9-2004, which among other things provides for service tax for the service rendered by outdoor caterers.2. I heard Sri. P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. John Varghese, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents.3. 'Service Tax' was introduced on outdoor caterers by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004 with effect from 10-9-2004. Since petitioner is engaged in supply of food and beverages to Air Companies for service to passengers on board flights the Central Excise Department demanded service ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
D. M. Misra, J. 1. None present for the Applicant despite notice. Heard the ld. A. R. for the Department. 2. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.3.15 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. It is seen from the record that during the relevant period i.e. from 2005-06 to 2009-10, the Applicant provided taxable services under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Servicesunder sub-clause (zzq) of Clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The services primarily rendered by them relates to widening of roads and construction of bituminous roads, filling the potholes, depressions etc, with bituminous macadam, relaying, re-surfacing and strengthening of roads. The demand has been confirmed against them on the ground that the activities carried out by the Applicant do not fall under the exclusion category of construction of roads, but relates to repair and maintenance of roads. We find t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.1,00,82,008/- and penalty of Rs.1,15,00,000/-imposed under Section 78, penalty under Section 77 and penalty under Section 76 (not quantified) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that during the relevant period i.e. from 16th June, 2005 to 31.03.2010, the Applicant provided taxable services under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services under sub-clause (zzq) of Clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The services primarily rendered by them relates to widening of roads and construction of bituminous roads, filling the potholes, depressions etc, with bituminous macadam, relaying, re-surfacing and strengthening of roads. It is his contention that demand has been confirmed against them on the ground that the activities carried out by the Applicant do not fall under the exclusion category of construc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)485
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order dt.28th March, 2007 of the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the asst. yr. 2005-06.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business as builder and developer. The only dispute in this appeal relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80-IB(10) of the IT Act.3. The facts of the case are found by the authorities are that M/s A.W.Pereira and Ors., were the owners of certain plots of land in village Kandivali, Borivali Taluka, Mumbai. M/s Conwood Agencies (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'principal developer') acquired the development rights of this plot of land from the said owners. On the basis of the application, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation sanctioned a building plan to the said principal developer for construction of one building consisting of 11 wings i.e. wings, A, B, C, D, E, F,. G. F1, A1, B1 and B2. The principal developer in pursuance of the sanctioned plan itself constructed only...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ844
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Earlier writ petitions filed questioning the levy of electricity tax imposed under Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1991 as well as Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 were dismissed, against which appeals were filed and the same were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 13.07.2006. It was, against the said dismissal order, civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has partially allowed the appeals by common order dated 15.05.2007 as reported in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. 2007 (3) CTC 273 (SC).2. The Supreme Court has set aside the impugned common order in so far it relates to demand charges, holding that in respect of demand charges no electricity tax is leviable. Based on the judgement of the Supreme Court, the petitioners have made representations and in spite of the same, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has raised electricity bill, levying electricity tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. I am in agreement with his conclusion that the House can now dispose of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 23 of his opinion. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe dealing with the implications and consequences of the manner in which the Court of Justice of the European Communities dealt with the five questions referred to that Court by the House’s order of 12 July 2006. I am in agreement with the conclusion reached by my noble and learned friend that the House can now dispose of the long drawn out appeal, that was heard by the House as long ago as July 2005, by making the order he suggests in paragraph 23 of his opinion. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe My Lords, The background to the second reference under Article 234 3. On...
Tag this Judgment!