Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC942IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1628 OF2023THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S TIRUMALA CONSTRUCTIONS RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.2502-2513/2023, C.A. No.2644-2686/2023, C.A. No.2732/2023, C.A. No.2733/2023, C.A. No.1654/2023, C.A. No.1683/2023, C.A. No.1662//2023, C.A. No.1663/2023, C.A. No.1629/2023, C.A. No.1658/2023, C.A. No.1630/2023, C.A. No.1653/2023, C.A. No.1655/2023, C.A. No.1657/2023, C.A. No.1672/2023, C.A. No.1676/2023, C.A. No.1656/2023, C.A. No.1661/2023, C.A. No.1664/2023, C.A. No.1660/2023, C.A. No.1682/2023, C.A. No.1665/2023, C.A. No.1666/2023, C.A. No.1667/2023, C.A. No.1668/2023, C.A. No.1669/2023, C.A. No.1659/2023, C.A. No.2690/2023, C.A. No.1670/2023, C.A. No.1673/2023, C.A. No.1671/2023, C.A. No.1674/2023, C.A. No.1675/2023, C.A. No.1677/2023, C.A. No.2687/2023, C.A. No.2688/2023, C.A. No.2689/2023, SLP(C) No.7776/2023, SLP(C) No.13543-13545/2023, SLP(C) No.13529-13530/2023, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9043 OF2003AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. ... Appellants VERSUS GOODRICKE GROUP LTD. & ANR. ... Respondents JUDGMENT R. F. Nariman, J.An interesting question is raised in this appeal which arises out of two judgments of this Court, namely, 'Buxa Dooars Tea Company Ltd. and others v. State of West Bengal and others' [(1989) 3 SCC211 and 'Goodricke Group Ltd. and others v. State of W.B. and others' [1995 Supp.(1) SCC707. In the present appeal, we are concerned with The West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976 and The West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. The High Court has found, based on a reading of the interim orders passed in both Buxa Dooars Tea Company Ltd.'s case and Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case, that for the period prior to the Amendment Act of 1989, the respondent herein is entitled to a refund of the cess paid by it together with interest at 12 per cent per annum, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(6)SC221; 1993(4)SCALE295; (1994)1SCC209; [1993]Supp3SCR453; [1995]96STC338(SC)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Entertainment Tax Officer-I, Khammam and the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 3rd April, 1986 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court struck down Section 1 of Act No. 16 of 1985 (the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985) to the extent of its applicability retrospectively between 7th September, 1984 to 24th October, 1984.2. To appreciate the point it is necessary to deal with the history of the Entertainments Tax Acts in Andhra Pradesh.3. The Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (Act No. X of 1939) provided for levy of tax at the fixed rate on the basis of percentage of payment made by a person for admission to any entertainment. However, in 1976 by Act No. 58 of 1976, Section 4-C was introduced under which tax was levied on entertainment show on the basis of certain percentage of the gross collection capacity of the show within the juris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)128CTR(SC)361; [1995]216ITR759(SC); JT1995(6)SC549; 1995(5)SCALE362; (1995)6SCC396; [1995]Supp3SCR642
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A seemingly simple expression, 'regular assessment', occurring in Section 214 of the Income Tax Act has given rise to an endless conflict as to its meaning among the several High Courts in the country. The first decision interpreting the expression was rendered as far back as 1957 by the Bombay High Court with reference to Sub-section (5) of Section 18A of the 1922 Act. Thereafter almost every High Court has pronounced upon the question expressing varying shades of opinion.LEGISLATIVE BACK GROUND:2. Prior to 1944, income tax was payable by the assessee only on an assessment being made by the Assessing Officer. Though the levy/charge was created by the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the tax became payable only when it was ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In 1944, however, Section 18A was introduced providing for the payment of tax in advance, i.e., even prior to the making of the assessment. Section 18A incorporated the principle 'pay as yo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]143TAXMAN373(SC)
Arijit Pasayat J.The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). By the impugned order it was held that the prayer made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-VIII, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT'), to declare the settlement order passed by the Commission on 18-9-1990, to be void and for withdrawing the benefits and immunities granted to the respondent-assessee was not acceptable. The order dated 18-9-1990, was passed under section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The application by the Commissioner of Income Tax for declaration of the said order to be void was made purportedly under section 245D(6) of the Act.The controversy in the present appeal has arisen in the following factual background:A search was conducted in the premises of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') on 8-2-1989...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(Supp)SCC476; [1985]Supp1SCR145
1. I have carefully gone through the judgment of my learned Brother, Mukharji, J., on the question of fee levied by the Karnataka State on the agricultural produce brought to the market for sale in that State. The theory of nexus between the fee levied and the services rendered cannot be reduced to a ritualistic formula so as to close it in a straitjacket nor can it be weighed in golden scales All that is necessary is that there should be a direct nexus between realisation of fees and the services rendered. What would be the nature of the services, when and how it should be rendered and in what measure is entirely a matter for the market committees to decide or determine. So long as the money is realised, even though on the higher side, but is spent on the extention and expansion of the markets, market yards, market facilities, godowns, rest houses, buildings, even roads leading up to the markets, that would be fully within the concept of a fee and could not be labelled as a tax on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1719; (1990)1GLR407; [1989]178ITR345(SC); JT1989(2)SC399; 1989Supp(2)SCC210; [1989]3SCR1
M.H. Kania, J.1. :- This is an appeal from the judgment of a Division of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Appln. No. 1797 of 1972 on a certificate granted under Article 133(l) of the Constitution of India. The relevant facts are as follows : -2. The assessee is a Private Limited Company and carries on the business of manufacturing and selling textiles at Porbundar in Saurashtra in the Gujarat State. Before 1948 Porbundar was a part of the Princely State of that name. No Income-tax was levied by the erstwhile Porbundar State prior to 1948. In 1948 there was a merger of several princely States and as a result of the merger, the State of Saurashtra was formed. No income-tax was levied by the Slate of Saurashtra till 1949 when it promulgated the Saurashtra Income-tax Ordinance. Under that Ordinance provision was made for the grant of depreciation allowance based on the written down value. The said Ordinance defined written down value' as follows:Written down value' means : - (a) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC1; 1992(3)SCALE306; (1993)1SCC479; [1992]Supp3SCR351
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Whether the notification issued on 31st March, 1984 by the Government of West Bengal, in exercise of power conferred under Section 8 of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922 (Bengal Act V of 1922) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended in 1981, exempting any performance organised by a bonafide group theatre, amateur theatre or amateur jatra, formed exclusively for purposes of cultural activities and not for monetary gains, by engaging artists who are not paid any regular or contractual fees from payment of entertainment tax was beyond the power to grant exemption for social, educational and scientific purpose, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the State of West Bengal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.2. Section 8 of the Act prior to its amendment read as under:8(1) The entertainments tax (and the show tax) shall not be charged on paym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2970; [1997]227ITR260(SC); JT1997(6)SC261; 1997(4)SCALE548; (1997)6SCC437; [1997]Supp1SCR608
ORDERS.C. Aggrawal, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court under Section 261 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act') involves the question whether the surplus as a result of difference between the written down value and the sale consideration for the Plant, machinery and dead stock transferred by the assessee is under Section 41(2) of 1961 Act. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1967-68.2. The assessee is a partnership firm which was carrying on the business of manufacturing art silk cloth. A private Ltd. Company by the name of Artex . (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was formed with a a view to take over the business of the assessee as a running. On March 31, 1966 the assessee and the company entered into an agreement whereunder the assessee agreed to sell to the company the business hitherto carried on by the assessee as a whole going concern. The consideration for the said sale was Rs. 11,50,400 which was paid a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from:the Tax Court, Johannesburg (Victor J sitting as President): The appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT Malan JA (Leach JA, Southwood, Schoeman and Van der Merwe AJJA concurring): [1] The appellant, Master Currency (Pty) Ltd, appeals against the dismissal by the Johannesburg Tax Court (Victor J) of its appeal against the revised value-added tax assessments in respect of the October 2003 to January 2005 tax period on the basis, as it was expressed in respondents assessment of 8 August 2007, that “ the commission and transaction fees received by the 2 branches operating in the duty free area of the then Johannesburg International Airport should be standard rated in terms of section 7(1)(a) of the Value-Added Tax No. 89 of 1991 .. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the services rendered by the appellant in the duty free area of the airport were not subject to VAT at the standard rate in terms of s 7(1)(a) of the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 but that,...
Tag this Judgment!