Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)(111)ECC151
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 3.9.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and seeking to recover interest from the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were receiving services of GTO for the period from 16.11.97 to 2.6.98. Validity of these services were challenged in the Supreme Court and a retrospective amendment was carried out to the Finance Act and the appellants were required to pay their service tax as recipient of services of GTO. The appellants discharged the service tax liability on 31.1.2004 and 1.2.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants in November, 2004 directing them to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and interest should not recovered from them for depositing the service tax liability late. The appellants contested the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 14.6.2005 imposed p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 27.9.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and seeking to recover interest from the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were receiving services of GTO for the period from 16.11.97 to 2.6.98. Validity of these services were challenged in the Supreme Court and a retrospective amendment was carried out to the Finance Act and the appellants were required to pay their service tax as recipient of services of GTO. The appellants discharged the service tax liability on 9.2.04, 16.2.04 and 1.3.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants in November, 2004 directing them to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and interest should not recovered from them for depositing the service tax liability late. The appellants contested the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 14.6.2005 im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR174(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for, for the following reliefs:(i) For declaration that the supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, X-ray items etc which are supplied by the petitioner to its indoor patients during the course of their treatment is not a transaction which comes within the meaning of 'Sale' as defined under Section 2(t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not taxable under the said Act.(ii) For declaration that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'Dealer' as defined under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not required to be registered as 'Dealer' under the said Act.(iii) To quash the notice dated 31/3/2005 contained in Annexure- 3 to the writ application issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, asking the petitioner to explain as to why an action be not taken against it for not registering itself as registered 'Dealer'.(iv)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1983]142ITR503(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. These two references relate to the assessment years 1973-74 (Samvat year 2028) and 1974-75 (Samvat year 2029). The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in ginning and pressing of cotton. Admittedly more than 80 per cent. of its income is from pressing charges recovered from customers and the balance relates to ginning charges. The ITO treated the assessee as an 'industrial company' within the meaning of s. 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973. That section in so far as we are concerned, reads as under : 'For the purposes of this section and the First Schedule, - ...... (c) 'industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged - ...... in the manufacture or processing of goods ......' 2. It is not necessary to notice the Explanation to the said sub-section as it is an undisputed fact that more than 80 per cent. of its income derived by the assessee is from pressing charges recovered from its customers. The Commissioner acting in exercise of the powe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(1)CTC13; (2006)205CTR(Mad)225; [2006]286ITR297(Mad); (2006)4MLJ836
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), Madras, 'D' Bench referred the matter under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, as per the direction of this Court in T.C.P. Nos.202 to 205/97 dated 08.09.1998, for opinion of this Court.2. The facts leading to the above tax cases are as under: i)The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is a closely held company. The relevant assessment years are 1984-85 and 1985-86 and the corresponding valuation dates are 31.03.1984 and 31.03.1985. The issue involved in these appeals relate to the assessment of multi storeyed building belonging to the assessee company. The property is at No.26, Commander-in-Chief Road, Chennai consisting of land to an extent of 26.65 grounds with a six storeyed building on a built-up area of 469 Sq.M. There is also another old building of 818 Sq.M. at the back. Of the total area of 26.65 grounds, an extent of 10.52 grounds had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Moshidi J sitting as court of first instance): 1. The appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel. 2. The order of the court below is set aside and substituted as follows: 1. It is declared that the first, second and third respondents failed to comply with the prescribed statutory requirements and procedures in arriving at the decision on 21 May 2009 to impose a rate of R 0.0154 in the rand on the value of business, industrial and commercial properties. 2. It is declared that in the future the first respondent is obliged to comply with the provisions of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000, the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 and the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004 when it materially amends a proposed budget after it has been tabled and advertised for public comment. 3. The first, second and third respondents are ordered to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1971]79ITR456(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. T.C. No. 19 of 1966 relates to the assessment year 1958-59, while T.C. No. 18 of 1966 relates to the assessment year1959-60. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated in India. The contentions raised in both the cases are identical and even so the questions referred to us for decision. The grievance of the assessee is against the withdrawal of certain rebates which, according to the company, it has earned under the Finance Acts of 1958 and 1959. The company declared a dividend of Rs. 99,000 in the previous year ending on December 31, 1957, relevant for the assessment year 1958-59, and a sum of Rs. 33,000 in the previous year ending December 31, 1958, relevant for the assessment year 1959-60. Its paid-up capital during the relevant years was Rs. 1,65,000. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the dividends declared in each of the years were in excess of 6 per cent. of the paid-up capital of the company and he worked out the super-tax payable in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1973]88ITR231(All)
1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single judge dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The appellant was assessed to income-tax and super-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 by orders dated November 21, 1960, and March 30, 1961, respectively. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 35 of the Act for each assessment year pointing out that there was an error apparent on the record which called for rectification. It appears that having regard to the amount of dividend distributed by the assessee in the respective previous years, the super-tax rebate should have been reduced. As that had not been done, the super-tax payable by the assessee had been under-charged. The appellant objected to the rectification proceedings. But, on July 17, 1962, the Income-tax Officer made two separate orders under Section 35 of the Act for the two assessment years pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2006)204CTR(MP)555
ORDERA.K. Patnak C.J.This is an appeal against the order dated 20-11-1995 passed by the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in Appeal No. IT(SS)A 84/Ind/1996 for the block year 1994-95 to 20-11-1995.2. The facts briefly are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. On 21-11-1995, the business premises of the assessee were searched and pursuant to a notice, the assessee filed an original return on 2-7-1996 disclosing nil income for the block period assessment year 1994-95 to 20-11-1995. Thereafter, he filed a revised return showing the income at Rs. 30,50,000 on 26-11-1996. The Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Indore assessed the income at Rs. 30,50,000 on 29-11-1996 under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal on 30-12-1996 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (for short the Tribunal) under section 253 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard the learned Special Counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard the learned APP for the respondent No.2. 2. Present application for bail is preferred by the applicant in the matter of offence punishable under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. During the arguments it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is the Director of M/s. Prashant Transport Exchange Division, and the Managing Director of M/s. Naidu's Infracon Private Limited. He was arrested on 22nd January, 2014 at 9:00 p.m. under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of Service Tax for the period from 2010 to December, 2013. 4. Prior to discussing the rival submissions, the factual position is required to be mentioned inasmuch as the applicant had collected Rs.2.59 Cores of Service Tax during the period 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 but had not deposited the said amount except Rs.15 Lakhs. The a...
Tag this Judgment!