Court : Chennai
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'D' dated 28th February 2005 in I.T.A.No. 499/Mds/1998. (Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1994-95, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs.17,16,619/- being the refundable contingency deposit collected by the appellant is liable to be included as a 'trading receipt' constituting income and not allowable as a deduction in computing the income?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs.24,500/- being the filing fees paid for increasing the capital structure of the company?3. Whether on the facts an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per: Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. M/s Panacea Biotech Ltd., New Delhi, the appellant herein, is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The unit is registered with the Central Excise Department. The appellant has been availing cenvat credit under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 2. Central Excise Officers of Division VI of Anti-Evasion visited the unit of the appellant on 18.11.2003. During the scrutiny of the records maintained by the appellant it was found that during the period 1.4.2003 to 18.11.2003, the appellant has cleared pharmaceutical products of two categories i.e. exempted and the dutiable. It was also found that the appellant had availed cenvat credit of duty paid under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable as well as the exempted final product. However, the appellant has neither maintained separate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. h October, 2012 Date of Decision:6. h December, 2012 % + W.P. (C) 6830/2011 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus OHM LIMITED Through: ......Respondent Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Vikas Jain, Mr. Sanat Kapoor and Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.: The short question which arises in this writ petition is whether the assessee, which is the respondent herein, falls to be assessed under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as claimed by it or under section 44DA of the Act as claimed by the petitioner which is the Revenue.2. The respondent-assessee is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and is a tax-resident of that country. It is engaged in the business of providing geophysical services to oil and gas exploration industry; it conducts electromagnetic survey, proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4742-4743 OF2021(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 35883-35884 of 2016) M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III Respondent JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J1 Leave granted.2. The question raised in these appeals is with particular reference to Section 43B Explanation 3C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act].. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy raised in these appeals are as follows.3. On 28th November, 1996, the Appellant filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.1,03,18,572/- for the assessment year 1996-1997. In the return filed by it, the Appellant claimed a deduction of Rs.2,84,71,384/- under Section 43B based on the issue of debentures 1 in lieu of interest accrued and payable to financial institutions. By an order dated 29th October, 1998, the Assessing Officer rejected the Appellants contention by holding that the issuance of debentu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 72,85,010/- in respect of machines mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice and a further duty demand of Rs. 30,12,355/- in respect of machines mentioned in Annexure 'B' to the show cause notice and imposing penalty of like amounts totaling Rs. 1,02,97,365/-, on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two contentions before us, namely that the goods in respect of which the duty demand is confirmed under the impugned order are in the control of the Customs authorities and, therefore, no such deposit of duty was required to be made under Section 129E of the Customs Act for the hearing of the present appeal and further that the explanation to Section 114A, which was inserted along with the provisos in Section 114A, by virtue of Section 81 of the Finance Act, 2000, did not apply and, therefore, penalty could not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2007)7STT109
1. Heard both sides. This is an application under Section 35 of the Service Tax Act, 1944 (sic) [Central Excise Act], filed by the appellants to waive the pre-deposit of the service tax, interest and penally demanded and to grant stay of its recovery.2. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Patna who in turn upheld the Order of the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Ranchi, the present appeal is filed along with the Stay Petition.3. The Joint Commissioner in his impugned Order confirmed the demand of Service Tax (including Education Cess) of Rs. 5,79,644.00 (Rupees five lakh seventy-nine thousand six hundred and forty-four) for the period relating to 11-9-2001 to 16-3-2005 under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.4. The appellant is running a Computer Training Centre at Ranchi, under a Licence Agreement with NIIT Ltd. At the said Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1993)47ITD1(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a limited company and the department are in cross-appeals, raising the common issue of the extent of deduction permissible under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. In the appeal of the assessee, it has contested sustaining of disallowances from out of certain expenses. In view of the common issue, these appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of by this composite order. We shall initially deal with the common issue and then deal with the disallowances of expenses, as contested by the appellant company.2. The facts relating to the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act are briefly stated hereunder. The assessee has been carrying on the business activity of providing consultation till the assessment year 1988-89 and its income comprised mainly of commission income from such consultations. In view of the prescription of uniform accounting year for all companies by the Income-tax Act, the previous year r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2004)192CTR(Uttranchal)507
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dt. 27th April, 2000, passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi, in ITA No. 1346/Del/1993.2. Mr. Spencer, J., respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. which, in the year under consideration, executed contracts in India. During the year under consideration, respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.3. The questions raised before us are as follows :Questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the salary, paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to Indian IT Act in terms- of Section 9(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, whereas the learned Tribunal has itself held, vide order dt. 25th March, 1992 in ITA No. 5649/Del/1992, dt. 28th July, 1999 in ITA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1357; (1991)91CTR(SC)89; [1991]188ITR91(SC); JT1990(4)SC754; 1990(2)SCALE1226; 1991Supp(1)SCC402; [1990]Supp3SCR469
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench, Patna High Court made in Tax Case No. 30 of 1972 dated September 11, 1974 answering in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee the question reframed thus:Whether on me facts and in the circumstances of this case the order of the Tribunal allowing the unabsorbed development rebate in respect of the plant and machinery not installed by the assessee, Under Section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act was legal and proper. 2. The Tribunal referred the question, at the instance of the Revenue, to the High Court Under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') which reads thus:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal holding that the conditions Under Section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act are satisfied, is legal and proper. 3. The appellant-assessee is a registered partnership firm under a deed executed and registered on November 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi512; [1985]151ITR93(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. It is well-settled that for the purpose of assessment to income-tax, the law to be applied is that law that is in force in the assessment year; in other words, the I.T. Act, as it stands amended on the first day of April of a financial year, will apply to the assessment for that year. This principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 221, has since been reiterated by Supreme Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala : [1966]60ITR262(SC) and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. : [1961]42ITR589(SC) and other decisions. The two references presently under consideration raise a similar question regarding the law applicable in regard to the levy of a penalty for concealment under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. So far as the penalty provisions are concerned, there have been material changes in the statute in several respects and these have brought to the forefront a good deal of controversy in regard t...
Tag this Judgment!