Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * + T. VINAYAK RAVI REDDY W.P.(C) 7015/2017 Through: Mr.Naveen Malhotra, Advocate ...Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents Through: Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI with Mr.Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr.Kunal Dutt, Mr.Abhishek Ghai and Ms.Anumita Chandra, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA ORDER1101.2018 % In view of the judgment passed today by this Court in W.P.(C) 5320/2017 and the connected petitions including the present one, a copy of which judgement is placed below, prayer (a) (i) in this petition is dismissed. The petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 6th February 2018 for the remaining prayers. S. MURALIDHAR, J.I.S. MEHTA, J.JANUARY11 2018 Rm $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 06, 2017 Pronounced on: January 11, 2018 + J SEKAR W.P. (C) 5320/2017 ........ Petitioner Through:Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abdul Saleem, Mr.S.Elambharathi, Mr.Harshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + S. RAMACHANDRAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 8116/2017 ...Petitioner Through: Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abdul Saleem, Mr.S.Elambharathi, Mr.Harshit Sethi and Mr.Rishi Sehgal, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents Through: Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI with Mr.Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr.Kunal Dutt, Mr.Abhishek Ghai and Ms.Anumita Chandra, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA ORDER1101.2018 % In view of the judgment passed today by this Court in W.P.(C) 5320/2017 and the connected petitions including the present one, a copy of which judgement is placed below, prayer (a) (i) in this petition is dismissed. The petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 6th February 2018 for the remaining prayers. S. MURALIDHAR, J.I.S. MEHTA, J.JANUARY11 2018 Rm $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 06, 2017 Pronounced on: January 11, 2018 + J SEKAR W.P. (C) 5320/2017 ........ Petitioner Thro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * 1 (SB) + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No.180/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Through: None. ..... Appellant versus MITUSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD. Through: None.... RESPONDENTCORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER1711.2017 % In view of the difference of opinion between us on the questions framed in the appeal, as expressed in our individual opinions placed on file, the matter is placed before the Honble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders. S. MURALIDHAR, J.PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.NOVEMBER17 2017 rd $~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH ITA1802014 Reserved on:11. hSeptember, 2017 Date of decision:17. h November,2017 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Mr. Rahul and Mr.Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel. Chaudhary versus MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD Through: Mr. M. ...... Respondent Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Nagi, Mr. Tarun Singh and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).6038-6039 OF2007SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMR.OF CEN. EXCISE & CUSTOMS-II ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.2. The liability of the appellant to service tax on the basis that the service rendered by the appellant amounts to cargo handling service within the meaning of Section 2(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 [as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004]. is the core issue that arises for determination in these cases.3. The appellant seeks to disclaim such liability by contending that the service rendered by it amounts to a packaging activity which has made exigible to service tax by amendment to the Finance Act, 1994 and by insertion of Section 65 (76b) and Section 105(zzzf) with effect from 16.06.2005. The appellant has been paying service tax on the aforesaid basis i.e. service rendered by it amounts...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., formerly known as 'ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd.' (hereafter the 'Assessee') under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') impugning an order dated 29th August, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1442/Del of 1997. The said appeal, ITA 1442/Del of 1997, was preferred by the Assessee against an order dated 14th January, 1997 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] in Appeal No.164/96-97 which in turn was preferred by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 25th March, 1994 passed in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 1991-92. 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to the denial of deduction of expenses - by virtue of provision of Section 40(a)(iii) of the Act -for failure on the part of the Assessee to deduct and deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) within the prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., formerly known as 'ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd.' (hereafter the 'Assessee') under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') impugning an order dated 29th August, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 1442/Del of 1997. The said appeal, ITA 1442/Del of 1997, was preferred by the Assessee against an order dated 14th January, 1997 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] in Appeal No.164/96-97 which in turn was preferred by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 25th March, 1994 passed in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 1991-92 . 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to the denial of deduction of expenses - by virtue of provision of Section 40(a)(iii) of the Act -for failure on the part of the Assessee to deduct and deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) within the prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Heard the learned counsel Shri A. Shankar appearing for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General Shri Madhusudhan R. Naik appearing for Respondents 3 and 4 and Shri Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for Respondents 1 and 2. These petitions are all heard and disposed of by this common order, as they are by the same petitioner. However, the challenge is to assessment orders for different years, as is detailed hereunder. 2. The petitioner is a company, a Government of Karnataka Undertaking engaged in the business of canalization of liquor, beer and rectified spirit. The Assessing Officer, within whose jurisdiction the Company operates, had passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity) for the Assessment years 2010-11 and disallowed the Privilege Fee of Rs. 570,14,37,000/-and made disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act in a sum of Rs. 36,52,797/- on 27.02.2013. The Assessing Officer had also passed an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2806 OF2015Commercial Taxes Officer ... Appellant Versus A Infrastructure Ltd. ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2807 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.2808 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.2809 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.2810 OF2015JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.This batch of appeals, by special leave, calls in question the legal acceptability of the common order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur in a batch of revision petitions filed by the assessee-respondent assailing the judgment dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short the Board) in Appeal No.680 of 2009 and other connected appeals whereby it had affirmed the decision rendered in appeals by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who had upheld the assessment orders passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer in respect of various quarters of the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE25H DAY OF JUNE20154TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 17294 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITAL PVT LTD, POTTAKUZHY JN., MURINJAPALAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHANDRIKA MENON. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VII, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AT NEYYATTINKARA, PIN.2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2506-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 17294 of 2015 (J) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: -------------...
Tag this Judgment!