Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)0GLR746; [1965]56ITR621(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. These petitions involve common questions of law and are founded on the same facts and it could, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. Certain notices were issued against the petitioners by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ahmedabad, on 31st January, 1962, under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The reason for issuing the notices was that, according to Income-tax Officer, the following income of each petitioner had escaped assessment in the assessment year mentioned against the respective incomes by reason of the omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for such assessment year : Rs. 41,000 in the assessmentyear 1943-44.)Each of the petitioners in )Special Civil Applications ) Rs. 91,575 in the assessmentNos. 370, 371 and 372 1962. ) year 1946-47.Rs. 36,535 in the assessmentyear 1950-51) Rs. 84,520 in the assessmentThe petitioner in Special ) year 1943-44.Civil Applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3020; (2005)4CompLJ440(SC); (2005)194CTR(SC)428; 2005(99)ECC377; 2005(182)ELT33(SC); [2005]274ITR194(SC); JT2005(Suppl3)SC389; (2005)4SCC214; 2006[3]STR608; 200
Ruma Pal, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act 2000 and Section 158 of the Finance Act, 2003 by which the decision of this Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : 1999ECR53(SC) , striking down Rules 2(1)(d), (xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (as amended in 1997) was sought to be overcome.2. The writ petitioners are the customers or clients of goods transport operators and forwarding and clearing agents. There are three main grounds on which they have based their challenge. They contend that the basis of the decision rendered in Laghu Udyog Bharati had not been removed or displaced by the impugned sections and could not therefore overrule, replace or override this Court's decision. The second ground of challenge is that Parliament was legislatively incompetent to enact the law. It is stated that the imposition of the impugned levy encroaches upon the State Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR2273; (2007)212CTR(Bom)384; [2008]298ITR149(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Tax Appeal No. 256 of 2007 is in respect of Assessment Year 1991-92 and Tax Appeal No. 259 of 2007 is in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95.2. The substantial question of law as formulated in both the Appeals is as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow the claim in respect of delayed payment of PF, if it has been paid upto the date of filing of Return of Income ignoring the fact that said amendment to the provisions of Section 43B of the I.T. Act was made with effect from 1st April, 2004 i.e. from Assessment Year 2004-05 and prior to that period, such contribution is to be allowed only when the same is paid before the due date of respective month.3. In both the Appeals the Assessment Officer disallowed the payment towards P.F. as being beyond the due date prescribed under the P.F. Act. The Assessee preferred an Appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed the judgment of the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)222CTR(SC)209; [2009]310ITR105(SC); JT2009(4)SC39; 2009(3)SCALE16; (2009)13SCC315; [2009]178TAXMAN285(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the `Act'). In the said appeal, challenge was to the order dated 01.7.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short the `Tribunal'). The dispute related to the block period 1.4.1990 to 3.7.2000. The question which arose for consideration is as follows:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the CIT (A)'s order directing not to levy surcharge on the tax worked out on the undisclosed income as the case pertains to a search conducted period to 1.6.2002?. 3. Factual position in a nutshell reads as follows:Search was conducted on 6.4.2000. The Assessing Officer in his order dated 22.5.2002 imposed surcharge and an application under Section 154 of the Act filed by the assessee fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1979]119ITR830(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that any part of the remuneration paid in excess of Rs. 5,000 per month from March 1, 1963, to September 30, 1963, should not be disallowed ?2. The question is not happily framed and we would reframe the question as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the remuneration paid in excess of Rs. 5,000 per month from March 1, 1963, to September 30, 1963, could be disallowed by reference to Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act as in force in the relevant year ?'3. The assessee was a private limited company. It submitted a return declaring an income of Rs. 25,23,265. In the statement accompanying the return, the assessee had disallowed a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(Kar)381; [2006]286ITR182(KAR); [2006]286ITR182(Karn)
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are involved common question of law.2. Writ Petition No. 5334/2003 is filed challenging the demand made by the respondent as per Annexure-C in so far as it relates to the demand pertaining to levying of interest under Section 234-B and 234-C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') aggregating to Rs. 71,12,704/- for the assessment year 2001-02 for the alleged default in payment of advance tax and Writ Petition No. 39460/2003 is filed challenging the intimation Annexure-C in so far as it demands the interest payable under Section 234-B and 234-C of the Act aggregating to Rs. 45,49,720/- for the assessment year 2002-03 for the alleged default in payment of advance tax.3. It is the contention of the petitioner which is common in both the petitions that a Division Bench of this Court has held that there is no obligation to pay advance tax in excess of assessment corresponding to provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1022; (1961)63BOMLR218; [1960]40ITR189(SC); [1960]3SCR873
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated August 3, 1956, in a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The Tribunal referred four questions for the decision of the High Court. The High Court did not answer the first question because it was not pressed, and answered the remaining in the negative, after modifying them. It has certified this case as fit for appeal to this Court, and hence this appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, is the appellant, and the Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., Bombay, (the Assessee Company), is the respondent. 2. The assessee Company has its year of account ending June 30 every year. At the close of the account year 1951, it carried forward profits amounting to Rs. 30,680. In that year, it appears it had earned a rebate by declaring dividends below the limit fixed by the Finance Act. For the account year 1952 its book profit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No.4107/2008 Reserved on:23. d July, 2013 Date of Decision:13. h November, 2013 % G.D. BUILDERS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Varun Prabhakar & Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocates. versus UOI AND ANR. .. Respondents Through Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Mukesh Anand and Mr. Ashish Virmani for UOI/R-1. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. + W.P.(C) 10226/2009 RAJ FURNITURE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Varun Prabhakar & Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocates. versus UOI + .. Respondent Through Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Mukesh Anand and Mr. Ashish Virmani for UOI/R-1. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. W.P.(C) 4127/2008 CLARION PROPERTIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Varun Prabhakar & Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocates. Versus Page 1 of 51 UOI AND ORS. .... Respondents Through Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, Addl. Solicito...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(SC)417; [2009]319ITR306(SC); JT2009(14)SC441; 2009(14)SCALE163; (2010)1SCC489; [2009]185TAXMAN416(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeal No. 7771/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 23851/2007, Civil Appeal No. 7770/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 17835/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7765/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 28521/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7769/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 6844/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7767/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9589/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7756/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9590/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7766/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9591/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7763/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 14363/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7764/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 17840/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7758/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 20012/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7762/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 1344/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7760/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 3759/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7754/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 21067/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7759/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 25174/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7768/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 30587/2008 and Civil Appeal No. 7761/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 1476/2009.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. A short question which arises for determination in this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)(120)LC193Tri(Chennai)
1. These appeals of the Revenue are against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In Appeal Nos. 76, 78 and 79, there is no representation for the respondents despite notice. In appeal No. 81, Shri Section Renganathan, Advocate has requested for adjournment of hearing. But this request of the Advocate cannot be acceded to as he has not filed vakalat for the party. In the remaining appeals, the respondents are represented by their Consultants. Shri C. Mani, JDR appears for the appellant (Revenue) in all the appeals.2. The common issue involved in these appeals is whether the respondents were liable to pay service tax on 'goods transport service' received by them during the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 as demanded by the department in show-cause notices issued after 12.5.2000 (the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 received Presidential asset). This issue is no longer res integra. It has been held consistently in a line of cases that any demand of service tax on goods transpor...
Tag this Judgment!