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 : 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 : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : LC(2007)(3)269
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-m, Chennai in ITA Nos. 173 and 174/2006-07 dt. 4th Oct., 2006. The assessments were framed by the Asstt. CIT, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai for the asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 vide his both orders dt. 27th March, 2006 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Since the issue is found to be common, both the appeals were elaborately heard together and for the sake of convenience and brevity, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only issue in these two appeals of the assessee is whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) or not in the given facts and circumstances.3. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the assessee is not pressing the first ground of the appeal regarding issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and hence, he is withdrawing this ground. The learned Depar...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(SC)733; [2007]289ITR83(SC); JT2007(3)SC125; 2007(2)SCALE612; (2007)9SCC665
Ashok Bhan, J.1. We propose to dispose of these appeals as has been done by the High Court, by a common order, as the point involved in all these appeals is the same.2. Facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2005.Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I, the respondent herein, filed ITA No. 340 of 2004 in the High Court of Delhi against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Assessee also filed ITA No. of 2004 being aggrieved against a part of the order of the Tribunal. High Court allowed the ITA No. 340 of 2004 filed by the Revenue and held that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') merely on the ground that the total income of the assessee was assessed at a minus figure/loss. Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal remitting the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) relating t...
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!