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 : 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 : Chennai
Reported in : [1975]99ITR243(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These two references relate to the same assessee but in respect of two different assessment years. The first reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64, and the second relates to the assessment year1964-65. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in motor and general insurance. The previous years relevant to the assessment years in question are calendar years 1962 and 1963, respectively. In respect of these assessment years the assessee filed the returns of income showing income from different sources separately. The total of such income for the assessment year 1963-64 came to Rs. 22,15,583. This income included a sum of Rs. 4,85,802 being the income from dividends from other companies. The assessee claimed that it is entitled to a rebate of Corporation tax at 45% on this dividend income as per the Finance Act, 1963. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that, since in the case of an insurance company the entire income is assessed as from bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)14STJ54CESTAT(Chennai)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the issue arising for consideration in this case is already covered by orders of this and other Benches of the Tribunal. The issue is whether the appellants were liable to pay service tax on GTO service during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. They had received the said service during the said period but had not paid any service tax thereon.However, the service tax returns for the said period were filed and the tax paid within the period of time prescribed for the purpose under the Finance Act, 2003. Such payment of tax was made under protest. Later on, it appears, the party filed a refund claim, which is not a part of the subject-matter of the present case. In a show-cause notice dated 09.07.2002 (issued prior to the aforesaid payment of service tax), the department demanded service tax for the aforesaid period and proposed to impose penalties on the party. The demands were contested. The original authority in adju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR369; 2009(111)BomLR1529; (2009)224CTR(Bom)197; [2009]17STJ255; 2009[14]STR289; [2009]19STT408; (2009)22VST293(Bom)
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The 1st petitioner is the Indian National Ship Owners' Association which is registered as a nonprofit making company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. Members of the 1st petitioner are owners of Indian Flag Vessels. The Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) is one of its members. The 2nd petitioner is also a member of the 1st petitioner. He is a shareholder of a Member Company of the 1st petitioner.2. The 1st respondent is the nodal Ministry in-charge of all matters and policies relating to Revenue. Respondent 2 is an apex body functioning under the control of respondent 1 that regulates all policy decisions relating to Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax matters. One of the functions of the 2nd respondent is to issue clarifications under Section 378 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Respondent 3 is the Commissioner of Service Tax and Respondent 4 is the Additional Commissioner (Technical) Service Tax, Mumbai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]56ITR114(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner, National Rayon Corporation Ltd., a public limited company, seeks to get quashed by a writ of certiorari the order made by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle I(3), Bombay, the respondent hereto, on the 29th of January, 1963, in exercise of his powers under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. Facts in brief are : In the assessment year 1956-57, the previous year being calendar year 1955, the income-tax of the assessee-company on its total income was computed at nil and the previous loss was ordered to be carried forward. The assessment order for the assessment year 1956-57 was made on February 17, 1958. In the previous year relating to the assessment year 1956-57, however the petitioner-company had declared dividends amounting to Rs. 15,77,340 on its ordinary subscribed share capital of Rs. 1,57,71,400. The declared divide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8673-8684 OF2013M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s) Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6525 OF2014YFC Projects Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6523 OF2014M/s. G.D. Builders Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Anr. Respondent(s) WITH1CIVIL APPEAL No.6526 OF2014M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Anr. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2666 OF2022(arising out of SLP (C) No.36206 of 2014) M/s. Unitech Ltd. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4547-4548 OF2014M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH2CIVIL APPEAL No.2667 OF2022(arising out of SLP (C) No.21828 of 2015) M/s. Larsen and Toubro Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994, is directed against an order dated 18th November 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal Nos.54595-54597 of 2014. 2. Admit. 3. The following question of law is framed: Was the CESTAT justified in granting to the Respondent the benefit of payment of reduced penalty to the extent of 25% in terms of the 3rd proviso to Section 78 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 (as it stood prior to its substitution by the Finance Act 2015) within 30 days from the date of the order of the CESTAT? 4. This Court has heard the submissions of Ms Sonia Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms Kavita Jha, learned counsel for the Respondent. 5. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Respondent, Tops Security Limited, is engaged in the business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)25CTR(Guj)263
Mankad, J. 1. The assessee, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufacrture of cotton textiles at Ahmedabad. The assessee-company effected exports out of India of various products manufactured by it during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. It claimed the benefit of deduction admissible to assessees whose total income includes any profits or gains derived from exports under s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1964-65 and under s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1965, for the assessment year 1965-66. Both these provisions are in identical terms. The question which is raised in these references is whether the assessee-company is entitled to claim such deduction or rebate, even though the assessee-company, which has not maintained separate accounts pertaining to the export business, is unable to establish that the export business resulted in any profit whatsoever. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!