Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.1195 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of : Medicare Services (India) PVT.LTD.& Anr. And The CustoMs.Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, EZB & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 12th December, 2013. Appearance : Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Mr.Agnibesh Sengupta, Mr.Ravi K. Kapoor, Mr.Subhrendu Halder, Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.The Court : Despite service, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. The affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record. The petitioner says that the show-cause notice issued by the department under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is bad illegal and having barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the plea of limitation was taken before the Commissioner which he did not consider at the time of disposal of an application for stay and or waiver of the pre-condition deposit. From the averments in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. No. 24/2013 Reserved on:23. d August, 2013 Date of Decision:6. h September, 2013 % Commissioner of Income Tax XIII ....Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus Respondent Naresh Kumar Through Nemo. ITA No. 218/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI .Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus M/s Talbros (P) Ltd. .Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.These two appeals by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (Act, for short) in the case of Naresh Kumar and M/s Talbros (P) Ltd. relate to a common assessment year 2008-09, and raise a common question and, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment at the stage of admission.2. The contention of the Revenue is that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in their impugned orders dated 21st May, 201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed to challenge the order of issue process made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.4177/12. The challenge is made on the ground that the J.M.F.C. has not followed the procedure laid down in section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code (as amended in the year 2006). This Court was taken through copy of complaint which is filed by respondent for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court was taken through copy of verification of complainant and the order made by J.M.F.C. The order dated 9.10.2012 shows that on the basis of this verification and on the basis of the documents produced by the complainant, the J.M.F.C. made the order of issue process, summons. 3. It was submitted for the accused/petitioner that no inquiry or investigation as required in amended provision of section 202 of Cr.P.C. is made by the J.M.F.C. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:20. 06.2013 Coram The Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.M.A.No.1451 of 2005 The Commissioner of Central Excise Central Excise Commissionerate No.1, Williams Road Tiruchirapalli 620 001 .. Appellant Vs. M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited Thirumandankudi Papanasam Taluk Tamil Nadu .. Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order No.844/2004 dated 1.10.2004 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhana Raman For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq for M/s. R.Karthikeyan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the Revenue against the final order No.844/2004 dated 1.10.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench by raising the following substantia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:16. 04-2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Tax Case (Appeal) No. 24 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax , Chennai. ... Appellant Versus Kuruvilla Abraham ... Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, dated 17.7.2009, in I.T.A No.1376/Mds/2008, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2005-06. For Appellant: Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph, Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2005-2006.2. The respondent assessee filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year admitting a total income of Rs. 2,40,150/-. When the assessment was taken up for scrutiny, the Assessing Officer treated the paintings sold by the assessee as capital...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 02.2013 CEAC 16 2012 WIPRO LIMITED ..... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Devnath, Mr Aditya Bhattacharya, Mr Abhishek Anand & Mr Bhuvnesh Satijha, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Satish Kr. Senior Standing Counsel for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J This is an appeal by Wipro Ltd., which was formerly known as Wipro BPO Solutions. It was at the material time engaged in the rendering of IT-enabled services such as technical support services, backoffice services, customer-care services etc. to its various clients all of whom were situated outside India, i.e., in UK, USA and Australia.2. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the Central Excise & Service CEAC 16 2012 Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in order ST/593/2011(PB) on 05.10.2011, in Appeal No. ST/66/2008. On 12....
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 : Chennai
(APPEAL under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 09.10.2009 made in I.T.A.No.519/Mds/2009 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2004-05.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. This Tax Case (Appeal), filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2004-05, was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) when the assessee company has not furnished the necessary completion certificates?" 2. It is seen from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act that the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act even in respect of projects which are not covered by necessary completion certificates, as required und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeals) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 16.2.2007 passed in I.T.A.No.2090/ Mds/ 2006 for the assessment year 2003-04. Chitra Venkataraman, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 by raising the following common question of law:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable ona prorata basis, where both commercial and residential houses have been built, when there is no such provision under the statute to grant the same?" 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects. In the returns filed for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in respect of pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Tax Case (Revision) to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Main Bench), Chennai dated 3.2.2000 in T.A.No. 283/98 and COP.NO. 341/99.) Chitra Venkataraman, J. 1. The assessee is on revision as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the claim for exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal also rejected the case of the assessee on the levy of purchase tax on the purchase of fly ash from Tuticorin Thermal Power Plant. The assessment year under consideration relates to 1991-92. The above Tax Case (Revision) was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the sale of cement by the petitioners to National Building Construction Corporation Limited (NBCCL) is a sale, which is deemed to be a sale in the course of export within the meaning of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and thus not part of the taxable turnover of the petitioners for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu General ...
Tag this Judgment!