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!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Mad)178
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. T.C. 83 of 1998 is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax with reference to the assessment year 1988-89 of the assessee. The question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Wealth Tax Act reads as under:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth tax within the meaning of Section 40(3)(vi) of Finance Act, 1983?2. T.C. 230 of 1998 is a reference at the instance of the assessee and the question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87 reads as under:-Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the building Asoka Plaza is not to be treated as 'plant' of the applicant's business of real estate developing and managing office and commercial complexes duly authorised by the applicant's Memorand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. The writ petition is for declaration to declare the Circular dated 7.10.2005 issued by the second respondent, the Central Board of Excise and Customs as ultra vires section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 read with sections 37B and 65(19) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India insofar it relates to the petitioner.2. The petitioner which is engaged in the business of publishing newspapers and periodicals had entered into a contract on 31.10.2000 with CCI Europe A/S Denmark for the supply of software for pagination system. That apart, an agreement for maintenance of software was also entered, by which the petitioner paid DKK 2,209,690 equivalent to Indian Rupees 1.66 crores (approximately). (a) The second respondent issued a circular on 17.12.2003 to the effect that the software service would be outside the purview of service tax and it is also stipulated in section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 that it does not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1964]51ITR92(All)
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution directed against the orders dated the 17th July, 1962, under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), withdrawing the super-tax rebate under clause I (c) to the second proviso to paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of 1958.The material facts leading up this petition are these : The petitioner is a company duly registered with effect from the 31st December, 1953. The relevant assessment years are 1958-59 and 1959-60. For the assessment year 1956-57, when there was a similar provision regarding the rebate of super-tax, the then Income-tax Officer did not make any reduction in the rebate of super-tax on account of excess dividends beyond six per cent of the paid up capital. For the assessment year 1957-58, the same Income-tax Officer reduced the amount of super-tax in terms of the Finance Act of 1957, the relevant provision whereof was in the same terms as that con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (2005)186CTR(AP)451; 2005(185)ELT236(AP); 2006[3]STR565
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. All these Writ Petitions raise common questions of facts and law therefore, are being disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of facts, we give reference to Writ Petition No. 1478 of 2004 and also to the counter filed in the same Writ Petition.2. The constitutional validity of levy of service tax by the Parliament on freight charges incurred by the petitioner on carriage of goods by road, is challenged. This petitioner had filed earlier, Writ Petition No. 950 of 1998 and had questioned the charging provisions on the ground of absence of legislative competence. This Writ Petition was allowed by the Court with a batch, on 5.11.1999, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharathi : 1999ECR53(SC) , striking down Rule 2(1)(d)(xvii) relating to payment of service tax by users of clearing and forwarding agents service and users of goods transport service. By Finance Act, 2000, the Parliament amended the provisions for the limited peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2005)92TTJ(Ahd.)645
1. In the above mentioned cases, the Hon'ble President of Tribunal has referred the following question for the consideration of Special Bench : "Whether penalty can be levied Under Section 271(1)(c) in cases where the assessed income is loss having regard to the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, and by the Finance Act, 2002 ?" 2. The facts which are common in all the cases are that all the assessees have furnished the return disclosing "loss" and what was finally assessed was also "loss" and the assessment years pertaining were after the amendment by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, and before the amendment made by Finance Act, 2002. Several counsels appeared on behalf of the assessees.3. Shri K.H. Kaji, senior advocate appeared in the case of Apsara Processors vide ITA No. 284/Ahd/2004 and Khedkar Brothers Trading Co.(P) Ltd. vide ITA No. 251/Ahd/2002. He argued at length. His arguments can be summarised as under : That Section 271(1)(c) provides for levy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a practicing advocate prays for the following reliefs:- (a) Declare the impugned provisions in section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2011 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and/or be pleased to strike down the said provisions as ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265 and 268A of the Constitution of India. (b) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing section 71(A)(5)(d) of the Finance Act, 2011. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the Respondents themselves, by their servants, ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim that petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company, engaged in the business of development and sale of immovable property, i.e., real estate, have impugned a notice, dated March 6, 2006 issued by respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Central Excise, to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner-company has been asked to get itself registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Finance Act, 1994'), inasmuch as the petitioner-company has been, according to respondent No. 3, 'providing commercial or industrial construction service/construction of complex service'. The petitioners challenge the very authority of respondent No. 3 to issue the notice, which stands impugned in the present writ petition, the case of the petitioners being, in brief thus: Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of developm...
Tag this Judgment!