2010 NTN (Vol. 44) [BEFORE THE WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL] Hon ble Pradipta Ray, Chairman and Dipak Chakraborti, Technical Member. Case No.
|
|
- Laurel Hodge
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 2010 NTN (Vol. 44) [BEFORE THE WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL] Hon ble Pradipta Ray, Chairman and Dipak Chakraborti, Technical Member. Case No. RN of 2007 Bharti Airtel Limited And Another vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Salt Lake Charge And Others Date of Decision : 23rd April, 2010 Liability to tax - Cellular Mobile Phone Recharge coupons - Supply thereof - West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 Section 2(3) - Recharge coupon vouchers fall within the meaning of actionable claims and hence are not taxable. We have already discussed that distributors/agents of the service providers on receipt of the consideration money, fixed by the service provider, transfer these recharge coupon vouchers to subscribers for availing of the telephone services provided by the service providers. Distributors/ agents cannot transfer these recharge coupon vouchers for any other purposes except for accessing telephone services provided and guaranteed by the service provider. On the strength of such recharge coupon vouchers, the subscriber cannot even avail of the services offered by other service providers. The interest of the subscriber is restricted only to the use of the services offered by the service provider for a pre-determined fixed period of time, obviously against monetary consideration equivalent to the telephone services one intends to avail of. Keeping in mind the facts of this case and the principle as laid down by the honourable apex court in the case of Sunrise Associates (2006) 145 STC 576, we are of the view that the recharge coupon vouchers fall within the meaning of actionable claims and hence are not taxable. The assessment order dated June 26, 2007, therefore, stands set aside. The matter is remanded back to the assessing authority for a fresh assessment keeping in view the observation made hereinbefrore. We, however, do not like to make any observation with regard to other issues raised in this petition. R. N. Bajoria, S. K. Bagaria, Atish Ghosh and Niladri Khanna for the petitioner P. Basu and B. Bhattacharyya for the respondents. Cases referred : Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India 2006 (145) STC 91 Escotal Mobile Communications Ltd. vs. Union of India 2002 (126) STC 475 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd.
2 2007 (294) ITR (AT) 283 Sunrise Associates vs. Government of NCT of Delhi 2006 (145) STC 576 Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn. vs. Union of India 2004 (135) STC 480 H. Anraj vs. Government of Tamil Nadu 1986 (61) STC 165 JUDGMENT (Hon'ble Dipak Chakraborti, Technical Member) In this petition filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioners, (1) Bharti Airtel Limited (formerly known as Bharati Tele-Ventures Limited), a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at H-5/12, Qutab Ambience, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi and principal office in West Bengal at Infinity Building, Sector V, Block-EPGP, 5th Floor, Salt Lake Electronic Complex, Kolkata and (ii) Sri Tuhin Chatterjee, working for gain at the said address at Salt Lake Electronic Complex, have challenged the order dated June 26, 2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Salt Lake Charge (in short, respondent No. 1 ) in relation to the assessment made under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, the 1994 Act ) pertaining to the assessment period four quarters ending on March 31, The petitioner-company, as claimed in this petition, is engaged in the business of providing cellular mobile telephone service (CMTS) to various subscribers in India including West Bengal. In the course of providing such CMTS, the petitioner-company during the year in question supplied or caused to be supplied subscriber identification module card (SIM card) and recharge coupon vouchers (also known as cash cards). As it appears from the order dated June 26, 2007 respondent No. 1 held that SIM cards were goods and supply of SIM cards by the petitioner-company to its distributors fell within the meaning of sales of taxable goods as per provision of the 1994 Act. Similarly, it was held by respondent No. 1 that supply of recharge coupon vouchers against consideration meant sale of goods. 3. The petitioners are represented by Sri R. N. Bajoria, Senior Advocate, Sri S. K. Bagaria, Sri Atish Ghosh and Sri Niladri Khanna, Advocates, whereas Sri P. Basu, Senior Advocate along with Sri B. Bhattacharyya, Advocate, represent the respondents. Both the sides have submitted written notes of arguments. 4. Initiating the arguments, Sri Bajoria, learned Senior Advocate, points out that the question of taxability of SIM cards had been agitated in several cases of telecom service providers. Ultimately, the honourable apex court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India (2006) 3 VST 95 [2006]145 STC 91 held that full facts regarding the function and nature of SIM cards had to be ascertained before deciding whether the transaction
3 relating to its transfer was one of sale of goods or rendering of telecom services. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that after the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Escotal Mobile Communications Ltd. vs. Union of India (2002) 126 STC 475, the petitioner started collecting sales tax on transfer of such SIM cards to its distributors. The tax so collected was also deposited to the State exchequer. In view of the position, learned senior advocate categorically submits that the petitioners do not wish to agitate the issue in the present application only because of the fact that the tax so deposited cannot be refunded now even if it is held that the transfer of SIM cards does not tantamount to sale. The petitioners, as submitted by the learned senior advocate, however reserve the right to agitate this in respect of other years. 5. The only issue, thus, required to be decided by this Tribunal is justified ability of taxing recharge coupon vouchers. 6. It is explained by the learned Senior Advocate that recharge coupon vouchers provide access to the telephone services. He relies on the observation of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sri Padmavati Venkataramanna Traders, Kurnool vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In its judgment dated February 6, 2008 (unreported), the Tribunal observed as below : As far recharge coupons are concerned, they provide access to the telephone service. The customers after purchasing the recharge coupon scratch the silver/black panel to view secret code and dial a particular number from their cell phone and enter the eighteen digit secret code to have access to the telephone service. As soon as the secret code is entered through their cell phone, the card becomes useless. Thus unless it is used for recharging their telephone service, it is useless. Thus, ultimately the recharge coupon carries a number printed on it. It is used to have connection and extension with the telephone service. Except for this purpose and use, it has no other utility. 7. Explaining the nature of recharge coupon vouchers, it is submitted by the learned senior advocate that the petitioner has two categories of its telecom services (i) pre-paid and (ii) post-paid. Recharge coupon vouchers are not required for the subscribers who make payment towards telecom services availed of by them on receipt of the bills. But in respect of small consumers, such payment are collected in advance through selling of recharge coupon vouchers as it is not feasible and economical for the petitioners to raise so many individual small bills. But such claimant cannot also be ignored from the business point of view as growth of telecom service depends on connectivity and extensive use of such services. Had there been no presence of an agent in between the service provider (the petitioners) and the service user, the position would have been otherwise. In that event it could have been inferred that the consumer is making payment against purchase of recharge coupon vouchers for the intended
4 service he would like to avail of. 8. The learned senior advocate refers to some proceedings initiated by the income-tax authorities against the petitioner-company contending that profit margin allowed to the distributors/agents was commission paid by the petitioner-company to them and hence, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner-company to deduct tax at source on such commission. This finding of the income-tax authority was challenged by the petitioners before the Income-tax Tribunal and the decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. reported in (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 283 (Kolkata) went against the petitioner-company. Before the Income-tax Tribunal, it was contended by the petitioner-company that the transactions between the petitioner-company and its distributors/agent were sale transactions and hence the petitioner was not obliged to deduct tax at source on such profit margin. Against the said decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the honourable Calcutta High Court which is still pending. It is therefore, argued, by the learned senior advocate that ultimate determination as regards the taxability of recharge coupon voucher depends upon the decision of the honourable High Court or of the honourable apex court if the matter goes so far. Accordingly, we are not called upon to decide whether transactions between the petitioner and its distributors were sale transaction. However, prima facie it appears to us that recharge coupons are just receipts or acknowledgement of required payment made by a used for obtaining mobile telephone services. This prima facie view should not be taken as expression of final services. 9. Alternative argument of the learned senior advocate is that even if the transaction between the petitioner-company and its distributors/agents is treated as sale but no tax is leviable on recharge coupon vouchers as they do not fall within the meaning of goods as defined in section 2(13) of the 1994 Act. Section 2(13) of the 1994 Act defines goods as goods include all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, stocks, shares of securities. It is claimed by the learned senior advocate that recharge coupon vouchers are nothing but actionable claims. He draws our attention, to the definition of actionable claims He draws our attention, to the definition of actionable claims. He draws our attention, to the definition of actionable claims as given in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, The said definition reads as below : Actionable claim means a claim to any debt, than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the civil courts recognize as affording ground for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent. 10. The learned Senior Advocate relying on the definition as above argues that recharge coupon vouchers are the acknowledgement of advance receipt
5 of money for rendering telecom services in future. The recharge coupon vouchers represent the right to get the services equal to the value they represent. They represent the beneficial interest in the contract for receiving telecom services which are movable property. Irrespective of whether such beneficial interest is existent or accruing or conditional or contingent it would be an actionable claim. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned senior advocate that recharge coupon vouchers are nothing but actionable claim and are not goods falling within the meaning of goods as defined in Section 2(13) of the 1994 Act and hence no tax can be levied on transfer of such recharge coupon vouchers. Transferability, contends the learned Senior Advocate, does not stand in the way of treating an asset of an actionable claim. In support of his submissions, he relies on a decision of the honourable apex court in the case of Sunrise Associates vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2006) 145 STC 576. While answering the question as to what is the distinction between actionable claim and the goods, the honourable apex court observed as below : (at pages 593 and 594 of STC): 38. The court in Vikas Sales (1996) 102 STC 106 (SC); (1996) 4 SCC 433 said when these licences/scrips are being bought and sold freely in the market as goods and when they are being bought and sold freely in the market as goods and when they have a value of their own unrelated to the goods which can be imported thereunder, it is idle to contend that they are in the nature of actionable claims. It was assumed that actionable claims are not transferable for value and that was the difference between actionable claims and those other goods which are covered by the definition of goods in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and the sales tax laws. The assumption was fallacious and the conclusion in so far as it was based on this erroneous perception, equally wrong. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deals with transfer of actionable claims in Chapter VIII of that Act. Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that an actionable claim may be assigned for value. A right on the fulfilment of certain conditions to call delivery of goods mentioned in a contract is an actionable claim and assignable under Section 130. (see Jaffer Mehar Aliv. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co.(1906) ITR 33 cal 702). There may also be assignment of an actionable claim de hors section 130 (See Bharat Nidhi Ltd. vs. Takhatmal (1969) 39 Comp Cas 114 (SC (1969) 1 SCR 595). Negotiable instruments, another species of actionable claim, are transferable under the Negotiabe Instruments Act, Transferability is, therefore, not the point of distinction between actionable claims and other goods which can be sold. The distinction lies in the definition of actionable claim. Therefore, if a claim to the beneficial interest in movable property not in the vendee s possession is transferred, it is not a sale of goods for the purpose of the sales tax laws. 11. It is, therefore, stressed further that recharge coupon vouchers are
6 nothing but actionable claims and their transferability could not alter or change their character. 12. The learned Senior Advocate admits that these recharge coupon vouchers are not made available directly to the consumers (subscribers) who are availing of the services rendered by the service provider (petitioner) because of difficulty in reaching the large number of individual consumers but at the same time, it is argued that the mode transfer of an asset does not change the nature and character of an asset. Transfer of such recharge coupon vouchers through distributors/agents only facilitates rendering of services of consumers/subscribers. The manner of transferring such recharge coupon vouchers is only incidental to the service being provided by the service providers/petitioner. Before concluding his submission that recharge coupon vouchers are not goods but actionable claims not exigible to sales tax on transfer, he draws a line of distinction between the facts of the case of Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn. vs. Union of India (2004) 135 STC 480 (SC) relied upon by the respondents in the instant case. The issues raised in that case and in the present one are totally different and the said decision of the honourable apex court has to applicability in this case. 13. The learned Senior Advocate, Sri P. Basu appearing along with Sri B. Bhattacharyya, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents admits that the dispute mainly relates to the taxability to sales of recharge coupon vouchers made by the petitioner-company to its distributors/agents. Since the petitioner has claimed that recharge coupon vouchers do not fall within the meaning of goods as defined under Section 2(13) of the 1994 Act but actionable claims, he tries to analyse the definition of actionable claims as given under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, It is stressed by him that actionable claim has to be either (a) unsecured debt, (b) a beneficial interest in the movable property, when such movable property is not in the possession of the claimant. It is asserted by the learned Senior Advocate, that recharge coupon vouchers are neither in the nature of debt nor in the nature of a beneficial interest in a movable property, not in the possession of a claimant. To substantiate his argument, he places his reliance on the definition of debt as given under clause (8) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India wherein it has been provided that debt includes any liability in respect of any obligation to repay capital sums by way of annuity and any liability under guarantee. He dissects the definition in two parts and submits that firstly debt may be an obligation to repay a capital sum or secondly a debt may be any liability under any guarantee. He further analyses the expression, capital sum and annuity. Relying on the definition of these expressions as given in Advance Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Lyer, third edition, volume I, reprint 2007 he submits that in order to qualify as a debt the obligation to repay must be related to any capital sum, which in simple terms means money.
7 14. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that recharge coupon vouchers do not relate to money. Such recharge coupon vouchers relate to a period of time during which the consumer can talk over the telephone which is commonly known as talk time. Thus the concept of talk time can never be construed as an unsecured debt. Moreover, any liability under any guarantee as appearing in the definition of debt under clause (8) of article 366 of the Constitution of India is not applicable in this case as actionable claim must be an unsecured debt. It is argued that concept of guarantee is akin to the concept of secured debt and, therefore, in order to qualify as unsecured debt, the said matter must relate to money and nothing else. It is further argued that concept of liability under a guarantee is never the same as the concept of liability under general contract. Recharge coupon vouches are reaching to the ultimate consumers in two stages first one from the service provider to the distributors/agent and thereafter from the distributor/agent to the ultimate consumer. In the instant case, the transfer of recharge coupon vouchers from the service providers to its distributors/agents against consideration is the issue under scrutiny. He, therefore, addresses the question as to whether such recharge coupon vouchers can be termed to be a beneficial interest in a movable property which is not in a possession of the claimant. It is admitted by him that honourable apex court in the case of sunrise Associates (2006) 145 STC 576 held lottery tickets to be actionable claim. But the same conclusion was arrived at after considering that.on purchasing a lottery ticket, the purchaser would have a claim to a conditional interest in the prize money which is not in the purchaser s possession. The right would fall squarely within the definition of an actionable claim and would, therefore, be excluded from the definition of goods under the Sale of Goods Act and the sales tax statutes The learned Senior Advocate draws an inference that the apex court held lottery tickets to be an actionable claim because of (i) prize money had been considered to be a movable property which is not in possession of the claimant and (ii) chance to win part of the said prize money has been considered as a beneficial interest in such movable property. 16. The learned Senior Advocate raises a question as to whether talk time can be regarded as a movable property and/or goods or alternatively a special property. It is contended that if guided by the definition of clause (11) of Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 then it qualifies as a property and not goods and hence take time cannot be considered as a movable property. It is, therefore, argued that it the talk time is not considered as a movable property, the recharge coupon vouchers also cannot be considered as a beneficial interest in the movable property and accordingly will not fall within the meaning of actionable claims. The learned Senior Advocate, therefore, contends that recharge coupon vouchers are not actionable claims, and sales thereof are taxable.
8 17. We have heard the rival contentions and also perused the records. Recharge coupon vouchers, as it appears to us allow the subscriber to avail of the telephone services guaranteed by the service provider for the equivalent amount of money paid by the subscriber to the distributor/ agent of the service provider at the time of purchase of such vouchers. They cannot be utilized by the subscriber for any other purposes other than enjoying the telephone services. A specific period of talk time is fixed according to the value of the recharge coupon vouchers. Though subscribers purchase the recharge coupon vouchers from distributors/agents. The telephone service is guaranteed by the service provider. Since the subscriber has no direct access to the service provider and the sales of such recharge coupon vouchers are made in two stage, the character of the transfaction between the service provider and its distributors is required to be determined. It has already been discussed hereinbefore that subject to the determination by the honourable Calcutta High Court, where a petition of this petitioner is lying pending, the petitioner for the time being accepts the transaction made with its distributors/agents as sale transaction. But it disputes the taxability of recharge coupon vouchers claiming such vouchers as actionable claims. In support of the submission, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Bajoria, relied on a decision of the honourable apex court in the case of Sunrise Associates (2006) 145 STC 576. The honourable apex court in that case was considering whether lottery tickets were good and were liable to sales tax. The honourable apex court concluded that..there was no sale of goods within the meaning of the Sales Tax Acts of the different States but at the highest a transfer of an actionable claim. The honourable apex court also drew a line of distinction between actionable claims and other goods on the sale of which tax may be levied, and observed, the distinction lies in the definition of actionable claim. Therefore, if a claim to the beneficial interest in movable property not in the vendee s possession is transferred, it is not a sale of goods for the purposes of sales tax laws. 18. The respondents on the other hand have asserted that the expression debt as appearing in the definition of actionable claims given under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only encompasses monetary debt and nothing else. But debt also may be a non-monetary thing that one person owes another, such as goods or services (Black s Law Dictionary, eighth edition, page 432). We do not, therefore, like to subscribe to the view that debt means only monetary debt. The next dispute is whether recharge coupon vouchers can be considered as a beneficial interest in the movable property. 19. The respondents have contested the claim that recharge coupon vouchers are actionable claims. They have not, however, denied that by purchasing recharge coupons a consumer acquires a beneficial interest to receive telecom services from the service provider. The contention of the
9 respondents appears to be that the telecom services are not movable properties and, therefore, the purchasers of recharge coupons do not derive any beneficial interest in movable property to come within the definition of actionable claim. Recharge coupon vouchers are acknowledgement of receipt of money in advance for rendering telecom services in future. As the money has been received in advance it constitutes a debt for the service provider. Upon purchase of recharge coupon vouchers, the consumer or user gets two rights. First, the consumer gets a right to enjoy mobile services and secondly. First, the consumer gets a right to enjoy mobile services and secondly, he also gets a right to receive back the amount if the required telecom services cannot be provided. 20. In H. Anraj vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1986) 61 STC 165, the Supreme Court has held that the right to participate in the draw of a lottery is a beneficial right in movable property and an actionable claim. When the right to participate in a draw of lottery is an actionable claim the right to get telecom services also qualifies as a beneficial right in movable property and an actionable claim. However, the purchaser has also a right to get back the money if the telecom service is not available. 21. It is now a settled position that an actionable claim is transferable and transferability of a right or interest does not change the nature and character of an actionable claim. 22. The respondents further rely on the definition of goods and property as given under clause (7) and clause (11) respectively of Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and contend that take time does not contain the general property in goods which on the other hand can be best be treated as a special property. 23. As regards this contention of the respondents, we would like to refer to the observation made by the honourable apex court in the case of Sunrise Associates (2006) 145 STC 576. Paragraphs 34, 35 and 36 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow : 34. The word goods for the purposes of imposition of sales tax has been uniformly defined in the various sales tax laws a meaning all kinds of movable property. The word property may denote the nature of the interest in goods and when used in this sense means title or ownership in a thing. The word may also be used to describe the thing itself. The two concepts are distinct, a distinction which must be kept in mind when considering the use of the word in connection with the sale of goods. In the Dictionary of Commercial Law by A. Hudson (1983 edition) the difference is clearly brought out. The definition reads thus : Property In commercial law this may carry its ordinary meaning of the subject-matter of ownership. But elsewhere, as in the sale of goods it may be used as a synonym for ownership and lesser right in goods.
10 Hence, when used in the definition of goods in the different sales tax statutes, the word property means the subject-matter of ownership. The same word in the context of a sale means the transfer of the ownership in goods. 35. We have noted earlier that all the statutory definitions of the word goods in the State sales tax laws have uniformly excluded, inter alia, actionable claims etc., not otherwise includible in the definition of goods there was no need for excluding them. In other words, actionable claims are goods but not for the purposes of the Sales Tax Acts and but for this statutory exclusion, an actionable claim would be goods or the subject-matter of ownership. Consequently an actionable claim is movable property and goods in the wider sense of the term but a sale of an actionable claim would not be subject to the sales tax laws. 36. Distinct elements are deducible from the definition of actionable claim in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. An actionable claim is of course as its nomenclature suggests, only a claim. A claim might connote a demand, but in the context of the definition it is a right, albeit an incorporeal one. Every claim is not an actionable claim. It must be a claim either to a debt or to a beneficial interest in movable property. The beneficial interest is not the movable property itself, and may be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent. The movable property in which such beneficial interest is claimed, must not be in the possession of the claimant. An actionable claim is, therefore, an incorporeal right. That goods for the purpose of sales tax may be intangible and incorporeal has been held in Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)137 STC 620 (SC); (2004) 271 ITR 401 (SC); (2005) 1 SCC We have already discussed that distributors/agents of the service providers on receipt of the consideration money, fixed by the service provider, transfer these recharge coupon vouchers to subscribers for availing of the telephone services provided by the service providers. Distributors/ agents cannot transfer these recharge coupon vouchers for any other purposes except for accessing telephone services provided and guaranteed by the service provider. On the strength of such recharge coupon vouchers, the subscriber cannot even avail of the services offered by other service providers. The interest of the subscriber is restricted only to the use of the services offered by the service provider for a pre-determined fixed period of time, obviously against monetary consideration equivalent to the telephone services one intends to avail of. 25. Keeping in mind the facts of this case and the principle as laid down by the honourable apex court in the case of Sunrise Associates (2006) 145 STC 576, we are of the view that the recharge coupon vouchers fall within the meaning of actionable claims and hence are not taxable. The assessment order dated June 26, 2007, therefore, stands set aside. The matter is remanded back to the assessing authority for a fresh assessment
11 keeping in view the observation made hereinbefrore. We, however, do not like to make any observation with regard to other issues raised in this petition. The petition, thus, stands disposed of. Nor order as to costs. Pradipta Ray (Chairman). I agree
C. B. MOR CELLULAR COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
[2015] 85 VST 58 (CESTAT) [CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL] (MUMBAI BENCH) C. B. MOR CELLULAR V. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR RAMESH NAIR Judicial Member January 16, 2015 HF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN : DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR STA No.112/2009 M/S
More informationINDIRECT TAXES Central Excise and Customs Case Law Update
CA. Hasmukh Kamdar INDIRECT TAXES Central Excise and Customs Case Law Update Valuation Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (283) ELT 161 (S.C.) decided on 29-8-12] Facts
More informationthe income was received from letting out of the properties, it was in the nature of rental income. He, thus, held that it would be treated as income f
'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4494 OF 2004 M/S CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., CHENNAI... Appellant VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
More informationA FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2012 NTN 49)-263 [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
www.ntnonline.net or www.upvatonline.com 2012 (Vol. 49)-263 [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Hon ble Huluvadi G Ramesh, J. Writ Petition Nos. 2459-2482 of 2011 (T Res). Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs.
More informationCIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. ()
(2010) 322 ITR 0158 :(2010) 032 (I) ITCL 0600 :(2010) 230 CTR 0320 :(2010) 036 DTR 0449 CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. () INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Penalty under section 271(1)(c)--Inaccurate particulars
More informationWorks Contract' and 'Contract for Sale': In light of Forty Sixth Amendment to the Indian Constitution
Works Contract' and 'Contract for Sale': In light of Forty Sixth Amendment to the Indian Constitution An analysis of judgment in Kone Elevator India (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu INTRODUCTION 1. Distinction
More information2009 NTN (Vol. 41) - 89 [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Hon'ble Mr. S.H. Kapadia & Hon'ble Mr. Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ. Civil Appeal No.
2009 NTN (Vol. 41) - 89 [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Hon'ble Mr. S.H. Kapadia & Hon'ble Mr. Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 2765 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1471/2008) M/s. Varkisons
More informationCORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 747 of 2013 ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V...Appellant(s) Versus POLESTAR INDUSTRIES...Opponent(s)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.06.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.192 and 243 of 2015 &
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) (Original Side) I.T.A. No.219 of 2003
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) (Original Side) Present: The Hon ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya And The Hon ble Mr. Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti I.T.A. No.219 of
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1580/Del/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05 05 M/s
More informationInsurance Key Indirect Tax Issues
CA. S.S. Gupta & CA. Nidhi Mapuskar Insurance Key Indirect Tax Issues The insurance sector is divided into two parts namely Life and General. The Government of India had introduced Service Tax on General
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 07.01.2016 + ITA 1011/2015 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant versus FACOR POWER LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
More informationDATED: 9th January, 2009
(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1398 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income ) Tax-3 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. ) Road, Mumbai-400 020.
More informationTax Insights. from India Tax & Regulatory Services. In brief. In detail. October 31, 2017
from India Tax & Regulatory Services SC ruled that no PE of a foreign company can be formed in India where its Indian subsidiary is performing support services, which enables such foreign company to render
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side) I.T.A. No.264 of 2003
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side) Present: The Hon ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya And The Hon ble Mr. Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti I.T.A. No.264 of 2003
More informationCommissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Punjab Chemical & Crop Protection Ltd
Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Punjab Chemical & Crop Protection Ltd Judgement: 1. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 20 th day of June, 2012 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR Between: Sales Tax Revision
More informationG.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE
G.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 Versus M/s. G K K Capital Markets (P) Limited
More informationDownloaded from :
Downloaded from : http://abcaus.in PETITIONER: BHARAT COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/1998 BENCH: SUJATA V.MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA
More information2011 NTN (Vol. 45)-75 [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] Hon'ble Adarsh Kumar Goel. Hon'ble Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. VAT Appeal No. 54 of 2010 (O&M) M/s
2011 NTN (Vol. 45)-75 [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] Hon'ble Adarsh Kumar Goel. Hon'ble Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. VAT Appeal No. 54 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Appellant. vs. State of Punjab
More informationIncome Tax Appeal No. 6 of M/s. Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Makum Road, Tinsukia Versus-
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2014 M/s. Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Makum Road, Tinsukia 786125. -Versus- Commissioner
More informationA FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22)-7 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
2003 (Vol. 22)-7 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Hon'ble Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. & Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1338 OF 1991 M/s Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax,
More informationD. Malleswara Rao vs Andhra Bank And Anr. on 22 August, 2005
Andhra High Court Andhra High Court Equivalent citations: 2005 (5) ALD 838, 2005 (6) ALT 614 Author: C Ramulu Bench: C Ramulu ORDER C.V. Ramulu, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to
More informationIndus Tower Limited and another. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
[2014] 68 VST 377 (AP) [IN THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] Indus Tower Limited and another State of Andhra Pradesh and others V. ROHINI G. AND SUNIL CHOWDARY T. JJ. December 23,2013 HF Assessee, including
More informationversus CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R %
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. + ST.APPL. 24/2015 HS POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD.... Petitioner Through: Ms P. L. Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER
More informationNotional depreciation not allowable while computing value of assets for wealth tax
Notional depreciation not allowable while computing value of assets for wealth tax A plausible manner in which WDV of an asset, thus, may be reckoned for the purpose of r. 14 is to reduce the depreciation
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12274 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 22059 OF 2015) REPORTABLE GOPAL AND SONS (HUF) CIT KOLKATA-XI VERSUS...APPELLANT(S)...RESPONDENT(S)
More informationIncome from business as computed in the assessment order
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ. AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, J. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 785 AND 783 OF 1977 APRIL 11, 1978 S.T.
More informationSUPER PACKAGING INDUSTRIES SALES TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM AND OTHERS
[2015] 86 VST 392 (Ker) [IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT] SUPER PACKAGING INDUSTRIES V. SALES TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM AND OTHERS HF Department. T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH JJ. July
More informationIN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH C. Vinay Mishra. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. IT Appeal No. 895 (Bang.) of s.p. no. 124 (Bang.
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH C Vinay Mishra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax IT Appeal No. 895 (Bang.) of 2012 s.p. no. 124 (Bang.) of 2012 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10] OCTOBER 12, 2012 ORDER Jason
More informationREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Tapan Kumar Dutta...
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2007 Tapan Kumar Dutta... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal... Respondent(s) J U
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No-160/2005. Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER ITA No-160/2005 Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007 Judgment delivered on: 24th May, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 171/2001. Date of decision: 18th July, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 171/2001 Date of decision: 18th July, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Petitioner Through Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr.
More informationImpact of GST on Free Supplies & Free Samples:
Impact of GST on Free Supplies & Free Samples: DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are of the author(s). The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India may not necessarily subscribe to the
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Malpani Estates, S.No.150, Malpani House, Indira Gandhi Marg,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA. ITA No.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF MARCH 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA BETWEEN: ITA No.660/2015 1. THE
More information2 the order passed by the AO dated for AY , on the following grounds:- 1 : Re.: Treating the reimbursement of the expenses as income
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "L" Bench, Mumbai Shri C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) & Before Shri Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member) ITA No.4659/Mum/2014-2009-10 ITA No.385/Mum/2016-2011-12 Dy.CIT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE Present : Hon ble Justice PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE Hon ble Justice SANKAR PRASAD MITRA ITA No. 373 OF 2005 BANGODAYA COTTON MILLS
More informationVERSUS M/S. BHAGAT CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD... Respondent. VERSUS M/S. M.R.G. PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES AND ORS... Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1169 OF 2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI... Appellant VERSUS M/S. BHAGAT CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.... Respondent WITH
More informationDecoding the Model GST law Impact on Telecom Companies
www.pwc.in Decoding the Model GST law Impact on Telecom Companies June 2016 India on the brink of GST There has been significant progress on the GST front recently. With the release of the draft Model
More informationCommissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. vs. M/s Executive Engineer, Rampur. And. Trade Tax Revision Nos. 353 & 354 of 1995
Date of Decision : 4th October, 2004 2005 (Vol. 26) - 108 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J. Trade Tax Revision Nos. 719, 750, 752 of 1995 Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow vs. M/s Executive
More informationHIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gulshan Mercantile Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. IT Appeal No. 429 of 2009 November 7, 2012 ORDER
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gulshan Mercantile Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. IT Appeal No. 429 of 2009 November 7, 2012 ORDER 1. We have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi for the Income
More information1. VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED... Petitioner. 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME... Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ITA No. 1742 of 2009 1. VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED... Petitioner Vs 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME... Respondent For Petitioner: SRI. A. KUMAR For
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2009 ITA 1130/2006 09.01.2009 M/S HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD Appellant Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR BETWEEN: ITA NO.828/2007 H.Raghavendra
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA 3/2001 Date of Decision: 5th September, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA 3/2001 Date of Decision: 5th September, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Adv.... Appellant versus M/S HANDICRAFTS
More informationIN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, KOLKATA. Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member
IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1185/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 I.T.O Ward 1(1),
More informationIn Flipkart India (P) Ltd* case, Bangalore ITAT ruled that Flipkart s discounts are tax deductible. Global Business Tax Alert Sharp Insights
India Tax & Regulatory For private circulation only 14 May 2018 p Global Business Tax Alert Sharp Insights In Flipkart India (P) Ltd* case, Bangalore ITAT ruled that Flipkart s discounts are tax deductible
More informationADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A)- BACK TO SQUARE ONE AT TRIBUNAL STAGE By Subash Agarwal, Advocate
ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A)- BACK TO SQUARE ONE AT TRIBUNAL STAGE By Subash Agarwal, Advocate Introduction 1. The first appellate authority viz., CIT(A) enjoys wide powers under the
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 8-D,
More informationCA SHARAD A SHAH. 21/06/2014 DTRC - Pune WIRC
CA SHARAD A SHAH 21/06/2014 DTRC - Pune WIRC-2014 1 Relevant Part of Section 271 (1) If the Assessing Officer] or the [Commissioner (Appeals)][or the Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) IN APPEAL NO. OF IN THE MATTER OF: The Income-tax Act, 1961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) IN APPEAL NO. OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: The Income-tax Act, 1961 And IN THE MATTER OF: Section 260A of the Income-tax Act,
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Page 1 of 13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Asst. year 2005-06) M/s Synopsys International
More informationEY Tax Alert. Executive summary
5 December 2014 EY Tax Alert Karnataka HC rules discount allowed to distributors for prepaid SIM cards and recharge vouchers not liable for withholding as commission or brokerage Executive summary Tax
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7313/2010 Date of decision: December 08, 2011 RRB CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.Krishnan with Mr. Nishank Singh,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side. I.T.A. No.201 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side PRESENT: The Hon ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND The Hon ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI I.T.A. No.201 of 2003 Md. Serajuddin
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 Date of decision: 31st July, 2012 LPA. No.48/2006.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 Date of decision: 31st July, 2012 LPA. No.48/2006 SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN...Appellant LPA. No.97-98/2006 M/S JAYANITA
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi.
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - versus M/S ZORAVAR VANASPATI LIMITED
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24.07.2009 + ITA 596/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant - versus M/S ZORAVAR VANASPATI LIMITED... Respondent Advocates who appeared
More informationCircular No.4 / 2011, relating to section 281, which deals with certain transfers to be void - S.K.Tyagi
Circular No.4 / 2011, relating to section 281, which deals with certain transfers to be void - S.K.Tyagi 1 The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has recently issued Circular No.4 / 2011, dated 19.7.2011,
More informationIndirect Tax Alert PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HOLDS NON-TAXABILITY OF LAND TRANSFER IN BUILDING CONTRACTS (WORKS CONTRACT)
Indirect Tax Alert April, 2015 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HOLDS NON-TAXABILITY OF LAND TRANSFER IN BUILDING CONTRACTS (WORKS CONTRACT) The two member bench of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
More informationSALE OF USED CAR WHETHER TAXABLE UNDER GST??
SALE OF USED CAR WHETHER TAXABLE UNDER GST?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION Many times businessmen (other than persons
More informationREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF B.L. Passi... Appellant(s)
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3892 OF 2007 B.L. Passi... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi... Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7541-7542 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34306-34307 of 2009) GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd.. Appellant(s) Versus
More informationCommissioner of Income Tax 24
vikrant 1/16 6 ITXA 1709 2014+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1709 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 20 Shri. Deepak Kumar Agarwal
More informationNATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.91 of 2017
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.91 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in C.P.
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) versus. With W.P.(C) 4558/2014.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha
More informationORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI C.P. No. D-1902 of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE
1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI C.P. No. D-1902 of 2015. DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE 1. For hearing of main case. 2. For hearing of CMA No. 8373/15. 20 November 2015. Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY WRIT PETITION NO.2468 OF 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2468 OF 2008 Cartini India Limited, ) (Formerly Godrej Appliances Ltd. ) Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (East),
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
ITRs 4TO6/02,7/95&18/98 1 Common Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 4/2002 WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 5/2002 WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd., The Times
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.4380 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4380 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24888 OF 2015) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant(s)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER. Judgment delivered on: ITA 243/2008. versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER Judgment delivered on: 26.11.2008 ITA 243/2008 SUBODH KUMAR BHARGAVA... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX... Respondent Advocates
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 BETWEEN: PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO. 303/2015 1. Principle
More informationBEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI. Tuesday, 09th April 2013 APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2012
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Tuesday, 09th April 2013 APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2012 Quorum: 1. Hon ble Mr. Justice M. Chockalingam (Judicial Member) 2. Hon ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA No.766 OF 2009 c/w ITA Nos.769/2009,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. TAX APPEAL NO. 93 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 93 of 2000 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. ITA No.3209 of 2005 ITA No.3165 of ITA No.3209 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ITA No.3209 of 2005 ITA No.3165 of 2005 ITA No.3209 of 2005 1) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
More informationRespondent preferred an appeal there against before the Commissioner (Appeals), which by an order dated was allowed. Appellant preferred an
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2006 Decided On: 03.03.2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs. Accurate Meters Ltd. Hon'ble Judges: S.B. Sinha, Asok Kumar Ganguly and R.M.
More informationHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD. Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on Income Tax Appeal No.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Judgment reserved on 10.10.2011 Judgment delivered on 25.11.2011 Income Tax Appeal No.241 of 2008 Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur v. Smt. Shaila Agarwal
More informationCommissioner of Income Tax Appellant. Versus. M/s. Global Appliances Inc. USA Respondent
11 TH NANI PALKHIVALA MEMORIAL NATIONAL TAX MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) IN APPEAL NO. OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: The Income-tax
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, Date of Decision: 23rd February, ITA 1222/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2012. ITA 1222/2011 CIT... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus
More informationIndependent Auditor s Report
128 Bharti Airtel Limited Annual Report 2016 17 To the Members of Bharti Airtel Limited Report on the Standalone Ind AS financial statements We have audited the accompanying standalone Ind AS financial
More informationCORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5848 of 2010 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5850 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE
More informationITA no. 3279/Mum./2008 (Assessment Year : ) Revenue by : Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain Assessee by : Mr. Firoze B. Andhyarujina
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no. 3279/Mum./2008 (Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner
More informationTHANTHI TRUST V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
THANTHI TRUST V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX In the Madras High Court R. Jayasimha Babu, J. W.P. Nos. 6193 of 1995 & 266-267 of 1998 15 October 1998 A. Y. 1992-93, 1995-96 & 1996-97 Income Tax Act,
More information* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 221/2014 & CM APPL.13917/2014. Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 221/2014 & CM APPL.13917/2014 Decided on: 12 th January, 2016 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY... Appellant Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for the DDA.
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE. BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.726/Bang/2014 (Assessment year: 2005-06) M/s.B & B Infotech
More informationBar & Bench ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: Coram
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.11.2017 Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order 09.10.2017 13.11.2017 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.1589, 1590,
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA. Before Shri Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), and Shri George Mathan (Judicial Member)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), and Shri George Mathan (Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 718/Kol. / 2014 Assessment year : 2011-2012
More information2011-TIOL-06-ARA-ST IN THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX) NEW DELHI
2011-TIOL-06-ARA-ST IN THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX) NEW DELHI Ruling No. AAR/ST/06/2011 Application No. AAR/ST/44/13/2010 Applicant M/s MAS-GMR AEROSPACE
More informationTribunal decides on taxability of conversion of company into an LLP
from India Tax & Regulatory Services Tribunal decides on taxability of conversion of company into an LLP December 12, 2018 In brief In a recent ruling, 1 the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A Nos. 1766 to 1768/Del/2015 Assessment Years-2011-12
More informationCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No.5523 of 2013 M/s. Amit Enterprises having its place of business at West Market Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi through its proprietor Shri Amit Kejriwal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Versus. M/s Garg Sons International.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2004 Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. Appellant Versus M/s Garg Sons International Respondent
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9310/2017 (Arising from Special Leave Petition(s)No.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9310/2017 (Arising from Special Leave Petition(s)No.24702/2015) FIRDAUS Petitioner(s) VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE
More information"Advance Rulings (Central Excise, Customs, Service Tax) Snapshot of Important Judicial Rulings"
CA. Jayesh Gogri "Advance Rulings (Central Excise, Customs, Service Tax) Snapshot of Important Judicial Rulings" Advance Rulings play a very important role in settling the uncertain situations which are
More informationIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 ITA Nos. 6675 & 6676/Del/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6675/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2013-14)
More information