Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 2005 section 92 amendment of section 13 Court: delhi Page 10 of about 19,533 results (0.385 seconds)

Carlsberg India Private Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Othe ...

Court : Delhi

..... in that case was engaged in the manufacture and sale of various drugs throughout india including the state of bihar. the question that arose was whether section 5 of the bihar finance act, 1981 ( bf act ) which provided for the levy of a surcharge on every dealer whose gross turnover during a year exceeds rs. 5 lakhs was constitutionally valid. ..... kohli (2012) 6 scc 312, association of leasing and financial service companies v. union of india (2011) 2 scc 352, gujarat ambuja cements ltd. v. union of india (2005) 4 scc 214, all india federation of tax practitioners v. union of india (supra) and tamil nadu kalyana mandapam association v. union of india (2004) 5 scc 632. ( ..... emphasised that the words of a legislative entry had to be given the widest possible scope and ambit. this was followed in godfrey philips ltd. v. state of up 2005(2) scc 515 and hoechst pharmaceuticals v. state of bihar 1983 (4) scc 45. the reliance is also placed on decisions in international tourist corporation v. state .....

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Raj Paul Chawla

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1979]117ITR574(Delhi)

..... and only the balance amount should be included in the net wealth. this court accepted the assessed's claim and held that the income-tax liability under section 68 of the finance act on the amount in question was a debt owed on the relevant valuation dates for all the assessment years in question. we seeno reason to differ from ..... question are the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. no return had been filed by the assessed originally, but subsequently he made a voluntary disclosure under section js8 of the finance act, 1965, showing rs. 87,000 as his undisclosed income; on that basis he became liable to pay tax amounting to rs. 52,200 some time after march, ..... in holding that in the determination of the assessed's net wealth the assessed was entitled to deduction of income-tax payable by him on the income disclosed under section 68 of the finance act, 1965?'2. the assessse in question, shri raj paul chawla, was a partner in the firm, m/s. diwan chand chawla & co., and the assessment years .....

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ansal Properties and Ind. (Pvt.) Lt ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [2009]315ITR225(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN201(Delhi)

..... the position was ambiguous as it was not clear even to the department as to which year's finance act would be applicable. to clear this doubt precisely, the proviso has been inserted in section 113 by which it is indicated that the finance act of the year in which the search was initiated would apply. therefore, in our view, the ..... and no such order could have been passed in rectification under section 154 of the act, even on merits, the proviso to section 113 of the act did not have any retroactive effect. the proviso was inserted with effect from 1.6.2002 by virtue of the finance act, 1999 and there is nothing to indicate that it would operate ..... the supreme court has taken the view that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory in nature and therefore surcharge on undisclosed income would be leviable. in suresh n. gupta (supra), the supreme court held:25. we find no merit in the above arguments. both, the finance acts of 2000 and 2001, indicated that a substantive charge was created .....

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, New Delhi Vs. Shailendra Mahto

Court : Delhi

..... of technical defect and similar reasons. however, as noticed below, this question does not arise for consideration in the present case.14. clause (c) of section 158bb(1) of the act as enacted was substituted by finance act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1 st july, 1995. the substituted clause (c) deals with cases where due date of filing of returns of income had ..... procedure for assessment and search cases , which would be applicable to the respondent-assessees. these are sections 158b clause (b), 158ba, 158bb, 158bc and 158bd of the act. the said provisions post amendment vide finance act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1 st july, 1995, read as under: section 158b. in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, xxx (b) undisclosed income includes any money .....

Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors

Court : Delhi

..... itr96 had occasion to deal with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which ..... that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay ..... appellate tribunal: (2011) 333 itr96and v. m. salgaocar and brothers v. board of trustees of port of mormugao and another: (2005) 4 scc613 5. at this point, it would be relevant to set out the provisions of section 254 (2a), including its provisos, which reads as under:- 254. orders of appellate tribunal. (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (1a .....

Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Merged With Pepsico India Ho Vs. Deputy Commiss ...

Court : Delhi

..... itr96 had occasion to deal with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which ..... that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay ..... appellate tribunal: (2011) 333 itr96and v. m. salgaocar and brothers v. board of trustees of port of mormugao and another: (2005) 4 scc613 5. at this point, it would be relevant to set out the provisions of section 254 (2a), including its provisos, which reads as under:- 254. orders of appellate tribunal. (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (1a .....

Wipro Limited Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

..... additional duties of excise (textiles and textile articles) act, 1978 (40 of 1978); (d) national calamity contingent duty leviable under section 136 of the finance act, 2001 (14 of 2001), as amended by section 169 of the finance act, 2003 (32 of 2003), section 3 of the finance act, 2004 (13 of 2004) and further amended by clause 123 of the finance bill, 2005, which clause has the force of law by ..... virtue of the declaration made under the provisional collection of taxes act, 1931 (16 of 1931 .....

Airport Retail Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... this aspect has been conclusively decided in favour of the petitioner by the abovementioned order dated 03.11.2009.35. clause (zzzz) of sub-section 105 of section 65 of the act was amended by finance act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007 to read as under: (105) "taxable service" means any service provided or to be ..... out a part of the airport services [sic].[recte premises]. .10. thereafter, section 65(105)(zzm) of the finance act, 1994 was amended by the finance act, 2010 with effect from 01.07.2010 and section 65(105)(zzzz) of the finance act, 1994 was also amended by the finance act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007. in view of the amended ..... petitioner also sought to include the following additional prayer: declare that no demand for service tax can be raised on the petitioner under section 65(105)(zzm) of the finance act, 1994 as amended by the finance act 2010 and that the circular dated 01.07.2010 (annexure o) is illegal and bad in law and null and void. .....

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Pepsico Ind Vs. Assistant Comm ...

Court : Delhi

..... itr96 had occasion to deal with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which ..... that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay ..... appellate tribunal: (2011) 333 itr96and v. m. salgaocar and brothers v. board of trustees of port of mormugao and another: (2005) 4 scc613 5. at this point, it would be relevant to set out the provisions of section 254 (2a), including its provisos, which reads as under:- 254. orders of appellate tribunal. (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (1a .....

Aspect Software Inc Vs. Astt. Director of International Taxation and ...

Court : Delhi

..... itr96 had occasion to deal with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which ..... that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay ..... appellate tribunal: (2011) 333 itr96and v. m. salgaocar and brothers v. board of trustees of port of mormugao and another: (2005) 4 scc613 5. at this point, it would be relevant to set out the provisions of section 254 (2a), including its provisos, which reads as under:- 254. orders of appellate tribunal. (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (1a .....