Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.38642/2016 C/W W.P. NOs.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (GM-RES) IN W.P. NO.38642/2016: BETWEEN:1. . MR. DYANI ANTONY PAUL S/O LATE JOSEPH PAUL AGED ABOUT33YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE - 575 008. 2 . MR. LAWENCE PAUL S/O LATE JOSEPH PAUL AGED ABOUT42YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE 575 008. 2 3 . SMT. ANITA DORINE FERNANDESW W/O LAWRENCE PAUL AGED ABOUT46YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE 575 008. PE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.38642/2016 C/W W.P. NOs.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (GM-RES) IN W.P. NO.38642/2016: BETWEEN:1. . MR. DYANI ANTONY PAUL S/O LATE JOSEPH PAUL AGED ABOUT33YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE - 575 008. 2 . MR. LAWENCE PAUL S/O LATE JOSEPH PAUL AGED ABOUT42YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE 575 008. 2 3 . SMT. ANITA DORINE FERNANDESW W/O LAWRENCE PAUL AGED ABOUT46YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE 575 008. PE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.38642/2016 C/W W.P. NOs.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (GM-RES) IN W.P. NO.38642/2016: BETWEEN:1. . MR. DYANI ANTONY PAUL S/O LATE JOSEPH PAUL AGED ABOUT33YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE - 575 008. 2 . MR. LAWENCE PAUL S/O LATE JOSEPH PAUL AGED ABOUT42YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE 575 008. 2 3 . SMT. ANITA DORINE FERNANDESW W/O LAWRENCE PAUL AGED ABOUT46YEARS NO.1/77, VAILANKANI COTTAGE PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY MUGRODY ROAD MANGALORE 575 008. PE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore both the appeals are taken up for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bolts, nuts and screws falling under Chapter 7318.10 of CETA, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. They cleared the goods on payment of duty and a portion of the goods was cleared without payment of duty under Chapter X Procedure. The issue raised in the present proceeding is that the respondent is liable to pay 8% of the value of the goods cleared under Chapter X under Rule 57CC / Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The period of demand is from April 2000 to November 2000 and from January 2000 to March 2000 in respect of both the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeals filed by the respondent on the ground that there is no machinery provision in the Act or Rules for its recovery. The lear...
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 : Mumbai
1) This appeal was admitted on 21/12/2010 on one question of law, which at the hearing of the appeal, by consent, is reframed into two questions, as follows :-a) Whether the transactions in exchange traded financial derivatives are "speculative transactions" as defined in Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ?b) If so whether clause (d) inserted to the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-2006 would apply to such transactions undertaken in the assessment year 2003-04 ?2) The respondent-assessee is an HUF engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities, etc. 3) In the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had entered into certain transactions in exchange traded derivatives ('derivative transactions' for short) which resulted in loss amounting to Rs. 28,37,707/-. The assessee claimed the above loss as business loss. In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short) the assessing officer rejected the contention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has upheld the liability of the assessees to interest of Rs.67,464/- on 8% reversal prior to issue of show-cause notice, under the provisions of Rule 57AH read with Rule 57AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended by Section 82 of the Finance Act, 2005 and Rule 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 read with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 as amended by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 2005 and as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. I have heard both sides. The period in dispute is from April 2000 to September 2001. The appellants do not dispute that they are liable to pay interest for the period subsequent to 12.5.2001. The question that remains to be decided is whether they are liable to pay interest under Section 11AA or under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act prior to 12.5.01 for the reason that prior to the above mentioned date, provisions of Section 11AB were applicable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)21VST581(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The review application is filed by the Revenue to review the order dated July 24, 2006 made in W.P. No. 2816 of 2006. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent/assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal made in T.A. No. 1320 of 2002 dated October 21, 2005 confirming the order of the lower authorities.2. Before the Division Bench, it was contended by the assessee that the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act (Act No. 42 of 1992)(hereinafter called 'the 1992 Act') was repealed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal (Repeal) Act, 2004 (Act No. 34 of 2004)(hereinafter called 'the repeal Act, 2004'). Thereafter there is no forum for hearing the revision. Hence, by way of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution, writ petition is filed, which is maintainable. However, it was contended by the Revenue that in view of the repeal of the Special Tribunal Act, a revision would lie to the High Court under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2437; [2009]183TAXMAN209(Kar); 2008(4)KCCR2801; 2008AIHC236(Kar)
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court praying for the following relief:[i] to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the letter bearing No. 5B/5-2/Digs/11 dated 9.11.2005 at Annexure-K; letter bearing No. 7/10/2005-NS.11 dated 27.7.2005, Annexure-L and letter bearing Ho, Sup[2];95/2O05-2006 dated 15.11.2005 at Annexure-M; and[ii] to direct the respondents-1 to 6 to accept a total sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- in his Public Provident Fund (in short, 'P P F Account') No. 0154 at the post office of the 6th respondent during the financial year 2005-2006.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:The petitioner who is a Senior Advocate of the Bar, holding a P P F Account No. 0154 (one of the specified Savings under Section 80-C of Income Tax Act) with the 6th respondent Section 80-C of the Income Tax Act was amended by the Finance Act, 2005 increasing the permissible deduction from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs, 1,00,000/- for the financial year 2005-06...
Tag this Judgment!