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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC303; 1999(1)BLJR14; JT1998(8)SC2; 1998(6)SCALE168; (1999)1SCC31; [1998]Supp2SCR699; [1999]112STC258(SC)
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions which have been tagged on to the Civil Appeals.2. In these appeals, the Judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 7063,7068 and 7467 of 1994 and the other Judgments following the same are under challenge. The short question for consideration is whether the Industrial Units which have started production prior to 1.4.93 and whose investment on plant and machinery do not exceed Rs. 15 Crores on 1.4.93 would be entitled to the facilities of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material for a period of seven years from 1.4.93 in accordance with Clause 10.4(i)(b) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Industrial Policy') and whether the notification issued by the Government of Bihar dated 2nd of April, 1994 in exercise of power Under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act to the extent it indicates 'who has not availed of any facility or be...
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!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. These appeals relate to Service tax on goods transport service received by the assessees during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. Appeal No. S/21/03 filed by the assessee is against a demand of service tax affirmed by the lower appellate authority, whereas appeal No. S/83/04 filed by the Department is against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondent holding that no service tax was leviable on goods transport service received by them for the above period.2. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the assesses submits that the question whether Service tax on goods transport service received by a person during the above period could be demanded after six months from 12.5.2000 has already been settled by this Bench in a series of cases.Two decisions cited by ld. Counsel are as follows:Futura Fibres and Anr. v. CCE, Chennai 3. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that, as in the above cases, Show-cause notices for recovery of service tax for the aforesaid period were i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)(111)ECC227
1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had availed services of Goods Transport Operator during the period from November, 1997 to June, 1998.After retrospective amendment of the provisions of Sections 65, 66 and 67 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, show cause notice dated 2.8.2002 was issued to the respondent for recovery of service tax under Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2002, which re-validated the levy and collection of service tax from the user of services of Goods Transport Operators. The demand was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority by following the decision of the Tribunal in case of L.H.Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE Meerut-II and similar other decisions.2. It is contended by the Revenue that the Tribunal's decision in case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. has not yet attained the finality as they have filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)13STJ333CESTAT(Chennai)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.2. The appellants had received Goods Transport Operator's service during the period 16.11.1997 - 1.6.1998 but had not paid any service tax thereon under the Finance Act, 1994. They had not filed any service tax return either. The department issued a show-cause notice on 27.12.2000 for recovery of service tax of Rs. 1,26,663/- with interest, under Section 73 r/w Section 71A of the Finance Act for the above period. The original authority dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner in his revisional jurisdictional set aside the order of the original authority and demanded the above service tax from the assessee. Hence the present appeal of the assessee.3. As rightly submitted by learned consultant for the assessee, the issue is already covered in their favour by the apex court's d...
Tag this Judgment!