Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home

Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC        CESTAT        ITAT        AAR


Bharti Teletech Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Full Bench: the Division Bench has quashed the order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana which had affirmed the orders passed by the appellate authority, namely, Joint Excise and Taxation and that of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Gurgaon), the original authority who had, upon initiation of a proceeding under Rule 28 (11) (b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 , come to hold that the respondent-assessee herein had violated the provisions of Rule 28A (11) (a) (i) as it had failed to maintain, without convincing reasons, the requisite production and was, therefore, liable to make full payment of tax exemption benefit availed by it during the concessional period, i.e., 13.12.1991 to 12.12.1998 of sale of Electronic Push Button Telephones, the present appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the State of Haryana and its functionaries.

Sasi Enterprises Vs. ACIT

Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala- the declaration or statement made in the individual returns by partners that the accounts of the firm are not finalized, hence no return has been filed by the firm, will not absolve the firm in filing the ‘statutory return under section 139(1) of the Act. The firm is independently required to file the return and merely because there has been a best judgment assessment under Section 144 would not nullify the liability of the firm to file the return as per Section 139(1) of the Act. Appellants’ contention that since they had in their individual returns indicated that the firm’s accounts had not been finalized, hence no returns were filed, would mean that failure to file return was not willful, cannot be accepted

Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Vs. CTO & Anr.

there shall be stay of operation and implementation of sub-Section (5) of Section 62 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 

M/s. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat Vs. CIT, Ujjain

the objects of the respondent-trust are based on religious tenets under Quran according to religious faith of Islam. We have already noticed that the perusal of the objects and purposes of the respondent-trust would clearly demonstrate that the activities of the trust though both charitable and religious are not exclusively meant for a particular religious community. The objects, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, do not channel the benefits to any community if not the Dawoodi Bohra Community and thus, would not fall under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act

M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India

whether the revenue is legally responsible under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for payment of interest on the refund of tax made to the resident/deductor under Section 240 of the Act.  - The Government, there being no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with the accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies. The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course.

M/s. Calcutta Knitwears Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

at what stage of the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B does the assessing authority require to record his satisfaction for issuing a notice under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act,  1961 - for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be prepared at either of the following stages: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under Section 158BC of the Act; (b) along with the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act; and (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under Section 158BC of the Act of the searched person.

M/s Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar Vs. Commr. of Delhi Value Added Tax

Once the AO had rightly come to the conclusion that the books of accounts were not properly maintained and were not reflecting each and every transaction, in our opinion, the AO had rightly come to a conclusion that total possible sale was much higher and the conclusion so arrived at was based on sound reasons. We also do not agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that proper adjustments regarding sales tax had not been made by the AO in the process of the assessment.

Rajasthan R.S.S. & Ginning Mills Fed. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Jaipur

So far as companies are concerned, there is a specific provision in the Act that upon amalgamation of one company with another, losses of the amalgamating companies can be carried forward and the amalgamated company can get those losses set off against its profits subject to the provisions of the Act. This is permissible by virtue of Section 72 A of the Act but there is no such provision in the case of co-operative societies

s. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd.Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Five Members: the principles stated in Larsen and Toubro (supra) as reproduced by us hereinabove, do correctly enunciate the legal position. Therefore, “the dominant nature test” or “overwhelming component test” or “the degree of labour and service test” are really not applicable. If the contract is a composite one which falls under the definition of works contracts as engrafted under clause (29A)(b) of Article 366 of the Constitution, the incidental part as regards labour and service pales into total insignificance for the purpose of determining the nature of the contract.

M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.  Vs. Union of India & Ors.

the questions for consideration are as to the entitlement of the Respondents/ assessees to Modvat/ Cenvat Credit for the use of inputs in the manufacture of final products which are exempt or subject to nil rate of duty and the requirement of the assessee to maintain separate accounts with respect to inputs used in dutiable goods as well as exempted goods and the liability arising on the failure of the assessee to maintain such separate accounts.

Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Vs. CIT, New Delhi

Section 80 HHC -To ascertain whether the turnover would also include sale proceeds from scrap, one has to know the meaning of the term ‘turnover’. The term ‘turnover’ has neither been defined in the Act nor has been explained by any of the CBDT circulars. -  the view expressed by the High Court is in conformity with the normal accounting practice followed by the traders, including the respondent-assessee and it was justified in coming to a conclusion that the proceeds generated from the sale of scrap would not be included in the ‘total turnover’.

Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Full Bench: We do not find any forcible submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that once the order had been dictated in open court, the order to review or recall is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that Section 362 Cr.P.C. puts an embargo to call, recall or review any judgment or order passed in criminal case once it has been pronounced and signed. In the instant case, admittedly, the order was dictated in the court, but had not been signed

Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal Vs. CWT, Rajkot

Having regard to the above legal position about the discretionary trust which is also applied by this Court in the earlier judgment 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 389 and the fact that the income has been retained and not disbursed to the beneficiaries, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be legally flawed. Merely because the Settlor and after his death, his son did not exercise their power to appoint the discretion exercisers, the character of the subject trusts does not get altered. In view of the facts noted above, in our opinion, the two U.K. trusts continued to be 'discretionary trust' for the subject assessment years.

Sh. Sanjeev Lal Etc. Etc. Vs. CIT Chandigarh & Anr.

AO was of the view that the appellants were not entitled to any benefit under Section 54 of the Act for the reason that the transfer of the original asset, i.e. the residential house, had been effected on 24th September, 2004 whereas the appellants had purchased another residential house on 30th April, 2003 i.e. more than one year prior to the purchase of the new asset and therefore, the appellants were made liable to pay income tax on the capital gain under Section 45 of the Act. - a right in respect of the capital asset, viz. the property in question had been transferred by the appellants in favour of the vendee/transferee on 27th December, 2002. The sale deed could not be executed for the reason that the appellants had been prevented from dealing with the residential house by an order of a competent court, which they could not have violated

M/s. Gira Enterprises & Anr. Vs. CC, Ahmedabad

In the absence of any material produced by the Revenue in proof of the alleged comparable imports at a higher value, the impugned order which eventually confirmed the original order of assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 31.3.2001 cannot be sustained for two reasons – (1) the mere existence of an alleged computer printout is not proof of the existence of comparable imports; (2) assuming such a printout exists and the contents thereof are true, the question still remains whether the transaction evidenced by the said computer printout are comparable to the transaction of the appellant.

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Full Bench: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. - (ii) Cognizance of any such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others

Amendment in Central Excise Notifications for North-East that refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT credit availed-whether the appellant-assessee was entitled to be given notice to show cause before proceeding for recovery in view of the language employed under Section 153(4) of the Act.

Govindbhai Mamaiya Vs. CIT, Rajkot

The respondents are three brothers. Their father died leaving the land admeasuring 17 acres and 11 gunthas to the three brothers and two other persons who relinquished their rights in favour of the three brothers. A part of this bequeathed land was acquired by the State Government and compensation was paid for it. On appeal, the compensation amount was enhanced and additional compensation alongwith interest was awarded.

Vatika Township Private Limited Vs. CIT, New Delhi

Constitution Bench: whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was inserted in that Section by the Finance Act, 2002 is to operate prospectively or is clarificatory and curative in nature and, therefore, has retrospective operation.- the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and another

Constitution Bench: Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 of the NTT Act (to the extent indicated - hereinabove), are  held  to  be  unconstitutional. Since the aforesaid provisions, constitute the edifice of the NTT Act, and without these provisions the remaining provisions are rendered ineffective and inconsequential, the entire enactment is declared unconstitutional. - the National Tax Tribunals Act is unconstitutional, being the ultimate encroachment on  the exclusive domain of the superior Courts of Record in India.

M/s. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. and others Vs. CCE, Jaipur

unless the  sales  tax  is  actually paid to the Sales Tax Department of the State  Government, no benefit towards excise duty can be given under  the concept  of “transaction  value”  under Section  4(4)(d),  for   it   is   not excludible.  As is seen from  the  facts,  25%  of the  sales  tax collected has been paid to the State exchequer by way  of  deposit. The rest of the amount has been retained by the assessee.  That has  to be treated as the price of the goods under the basic fundamental conception of “transaction value” as substituted with  effect  from 1.7.2000.  Therefore, the assessee is bound to pay the excise  duty on the said sum after the amended  provision  had  brought  on  the statute book

M/s. Agarwal Iron Industries Vs. Union of India & Ors.

High Court has quashed the search and seizure conducted on 16.2.2000 in the factory premises. - The terms used are ‘reason to believe’. Whether the competent authority had formed the opinion on the basis of any acceptable material or not, as is clear as crystal, the High Court has not even remotely tried to see the reasons. Reasons, needless to say, can be recorded on the file and the Court can scrutinize the file and find out whether the authority has appropriately recorded the reasons for forming of an opinion that there are reasons to believe to conduct search and seizure. As is evincible, the High Court has totally misdirected itself in quashing the search and seizure on the basis of the principles of non-traverse

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

VAT-the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the mobile/cell phone charger is an accessory to cell phone and is not a part of the cell phone. We further hold that the battery charger cannot be held to be a composite part of the cell phone but is an independent product which can be sold separately, without selling the cell phone. The High Court failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and wrongly held that the battery charger is a part of the cell phone.


HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources 


  Copyright © 2006 | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments