Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 08.08.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.11427 of 2006.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge, setting aside a demand for payment of Service Tax. 2. Heard Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Department and Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. The respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of GRP pipes. Upon perusal of the accounts of the respondent/assessee, the Department noticed that the assessee received an amount of Rs.5,19,45,145/- towards labour charges for installation and commissioning of GRP Pipes for various customers during the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.10.2004. Therefore, a show cause notice, dated 30.05.2005, was issued on the ground that they are liable to pay service tax on the value of the service rendered by them under the category of "Erection, Commissioning or Instal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)(119)LC192Tri(Chennai)
1. Ld. DR for the Revenue (appellant) has given an account of the facts of the case and has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. Ld.Consultant for the respondents has argued in defence of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), banking on Final Order No.930-931/2004 dated 20.10.2004 passed by this Bench in the cases of M/s.EID Parry Confectionery Ltd. and M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., (Appeal Nos. S/22 8b 39/2004) : 2004 (117) ECR 670 (T).2. The Revenue's appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vacating interest on service tax as well as penalty on the assessee. The assessee (respondents) had received goods transport service during the period 6.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 but did not pay tax in respect thereof. However, the tax was paid later on, prior to issuance of the relevant show-cause notice. This payment was not under protest.The show-cause notice dated 2.1.2003, which also proposed to levy interest on tax and to impose penalty on the assessee, came to be ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1992)103CTR(Ori)222; [1993]199ITR761(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. On being moved by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions to this court : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in modifying the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the total income on which deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be computed must be calculated before deducting relief allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) ?' 2. The background facts as culled out from the statement of the case are to the following effect : M/s. Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited (hereinafter referre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]118ITR609(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN393(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and the question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the rebate of Rs. 3,00,000 could be withdrawn for the assessment year 1959-60 on account of the bonus shares issued during the accounting year ending 30th June, 1956 ?' 2. A few facts may be stated : The assessee is a company owning a number of shipping vessels. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1959-60, the relevant accounting period being the year ending 30th June, 1958. During the accounting year ending 30th June, 1956, i.e., relating to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee had issued bonus shares. In his assessment order for the assessment year 1959-60, the ITO worked out the rebate of corporation tax allowable to the assessee at Rs. 14,50,933. From this, however, he deducted a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as withdrawal of rebate on account of the bon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)(30)LC491Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. GSM-2009/89-AHD (File No. V-2 (52Ch)13/Ahd/89) dated 5-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Appeal No. 847/89 Bom has been moved on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, while the other appeal bearing No.E/772/89Bom has been moved by M/s Mihir Textiles Ltd. against the same order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals).3. Since both the appeals are against the same order and the facts and issues involved covered by the single order were argued together and hence disposed of by this common order.4. Shri K.M. Mondal, the Learned S.D.R., on behalf of the appellant-Collector, gave the brief facts relating to their appeal as below: 5. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, adjudicated 19 show cause notices issued for the purpose of recovery of duty on yarn captively consumed by the respondents mills during the various peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1989)31ITD338(Mad.)
1. This is a departmental appeal relating to the assessment year 1983-84. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the centering sheets, machinery and tools employed by the assessee, who carries on business in construction work and who undertakes work contracts at different places, is entitled to investment allowance. For the accounting year in question centering sheets valuing Rs. 45,943 was introduced into the business of the assessee. The assessee was claiming Rs. 20,441 towards investment allowance on centering sheets, machinery and tools employed by him hi his business. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow anything towards investment allowance firstly on the ground that the assessee does not maintain any industrial undertaking.Secondly that the centering sheets cannot be called either plant or machinery and they are not entitled to investment allowance. Thirdly the Income-tax Officer states in his assessment order that Section 32A(2) does not refer to construction wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.300/2011 Reserved on:10. h July, 2014 Date of decision:18. h July, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus HEARTLAND DELHI TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. P. Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Dhir and Ms. Bina Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.: This appeal by the Revenue pertains to assessment year 2004-05 and relates to interpretation of Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short).2. By order dated 11th May, 2011, the following substantial questions of law were framed:(i) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing deduction u/s 10B of the Act to the assessee?. (ii) Whether ITAT has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 10B of the Act?. 2. The respondent is an assessee, who claims deduc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1993)47ITD349(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal arising out of an assessment made for surtax for the assessment year 1983-84. In response to statutory notice issued, the assessee-company filed return showing chargeable profit of Rs. 10,78,730. To arrive at the chargeable profit, for levy of surtax, the Surtax Officer deducted from the income-tax payable on the total income determined a sum of Rs. 1,88,929 which represented the tax deducted from the dividends declared to be distributed to the shareholders. The view of the Assessing Officer was that under Rule 2(i)(b) of the First Schedule, the amount of income-tax if any payable on the distribution of dividends should be reduced from the total income arrived at after making adjustments as provided for in Rule 1. It was the interpretation placed upon this Sub-rule (ii)(b) by the Surtax Officer and approved of by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) that is now the subject matter of appeal before us.2. For income-tax purposes, the income assessed was Rs. 1.30 crores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2000)73ITD180(Chennai)
1. The assessee, a limited company has filed the appeal aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai [CWT(A) for short] dt. 19th October, 1989. The grievance of the appellant-company is with reference to the provisions of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plea as raised in this appeal is that the said section that was amended by the Finance Act, 1988 had extended the exemption to the buildings that are owned by the company and used by it for the residence of its employees without any restriction to the salary that are paid to such employees, is to be applied retrospectively for the assessment year under appeal and the wealth of the assessee should be computed by allowing exemption to the buildings that are used by it as residential building for housing its employees who draw pay in excess of Rs. 10,000 and as transit accommodation for its employees who are on official visit of Calcutta.2. The residential building...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)(93)ECC88
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 10/2002 (M-I) dated 14.3.2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the service tax of Rs. 2,11,56,278/- for the period from 1.7.94 to 31.7.99 under Section 76 read with Sections 68 & 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and has adjusted the amount of Rs. 1,66,71,876/- already paid towards the above demand. There is further demand of Rs. 99,24,880/- and Rs. 44,84,402/- towards interest under Section 75 of the said Act for the belated payment of service Tax. However, the Commissioner has dropped the demand of service tax / interest on the surcharge amount collected.2. The Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Chennai Telephones (now BSNL) are the service providers of telephones and registered with the Department under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. They also render the service of provision of circuits to the subscribers on payment of annual fees. they also collect surcharge from the customers for the belated payment of such...
Tag this Judgment!