|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1743 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1648 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f building and structures were provided in the schedule of the Scheme and pursuant to the authority given under the Board Resolution, the application is filed for correction of the details of immovable properties. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the basic fabric of the Scheme is retained and the properties are also transferred only the details are sought to be corrected. The learned counsel submits that the valuation will also not change can be seen from the report of the Chartered Accountant. The learned counsel for the Regional Director, on instructions, states that he has no objection. 4. It appears from perusal of the applications that what is sought is the change in the details of the assets and the requisite Board Resolution is passed. At the time of Scheme, none had come forward to oppose the grant of Scheme. 5. Accordingly, the applications are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1647 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... iew of the reason that the petitioner are no more shareholders of the company. Therefore rectification of register of members does not arise. Accordingly CA/ 165/2011 is allowed. It is state that the learned counsel for the respondents herein filed an application being CA/ 1/2013 in the above petition to receive the additional documents. After hearing the counsel I am of the view that the documents which was filed by the petitioners will not help in any way to substantiate their case. Accordingly CA/ 1/2013 in CP/34/2011 is dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents herein filed another application being CA/2/2013 to receive additional documents after reserving the matter. After examining the documents I am of the view that the said documents do not support the case of the petitioners. Accordingly CA/2/2013 in CP/34/2011 is dismissed. In view of the reasons as stated above the petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, CP/34/201 1 is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1646 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The Company-respondent shall hand over the fixed deposit in a sum of ₹ 14,75,6012/- (Rupees fourteen crores seventy five lakhs six thousand and twelve only) with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6) The Company-respondent shall not sell the balance shares, i.e., 3,471,154 which was the subject matter of the impugned order, pending disposal of the Company Petition on merits. 7) The Company-respondent shall not in any way sell, transfer, part with possession or do any act in respect of all other assets of the Company including the shares, pending disposal of the Company Petition on merits. 8) As the appeals were heard on merits, the interlocutory applications filed in all these appeals except the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal in O.S.A. 43/2013, is not heard, as the main appeals itself were disposed of. 9) Parties to bear their costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1645 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... ge do not fall within the characteristics of the tax. Following this judgment, we hold that in the present case also, for the purpose of deciding applicability of Board’s Instruction, tax effect should be worked out without including cess and therefore, in the present case, the present appeal of the Revenue is hit by the Board’s Instruction and tax effect, being not excess of ₹ 3 lakhs, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. Now we take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The Cross Objection is only in support of the order of learned CIT (A) and since the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed as not maintainable because of low tax effect, the Cross Objection of the assessee does not survive for this reason also. Accordingly, the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1644 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder section 12 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the petitioners are rightly denied the refund of luxury tax of ₹ 25,91,607/-. 4.2 Now, so far as the apprehension on the part of the petitioners that interpretation made by the authority as per impugned communication dated 30/5/2013 will come in the way of the petitioners in future is concerned, it is observed that as and when any return is submitted by the petitioners in future as provided under section 5 of the Act, the same are bound to be assessed by the appropriate authority/Collector, Vadodara in accordance with section 6 of the Act and if the petitioners are aggrieved, they can prefer an appeal and thereafter initiate further proceedings. However, it is observed that the future assessment shall always be considered in accordance with the prevailing law. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with above observations.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1643 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The petitioner companies are further directed to lodge a copy of this order, the schedule of immovable assets of the demerged undertaking as on the date of this order and the Scheme duly authenticated by the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat, with the concerned Superintendent of Stamps, for the purpose of adjudication of stamp duty, if any, on the same within 60 days from the date of the order. 15. The Petitioner companies are directed to file a copy of this order alongwith a copy of the scheme with the concerned Registrar of Companies, electronically, along with E Form in addition to physical copy as per relevant provisions of the Act. 16. Filing and issuance of drawn up order is hereby dispensed with. 17. All concerned authorities to act on a copy of this order along with the scheme duly authenticated by the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat. The Registrar, High Court of Gujarat shall issue the authenticated copy of this order alongwith Scheme as expeditiously as possible.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1642 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... st 15 years and she is very well acquainted with the affairs of the company. Further it was stated that the second respondent got several accreditions from various organisations from all over the world for the services rendered in the RI Company. In the AGM scheduled to be held on 18.12.2013 the company is going to transact the business as stated in the notice. From the notice it is seen that there are no changes going to take place by passing the resolutions more particularly change in the management or the ownership and there is no takeover by the outsiders. Since the AGM is a mandatory in law I am not inclined to stay the AGM. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner got the notice for the said AGM. The petitioner can participate in the AGM. The company can go ahead with the convening of 60th AGM and pass resolutions as per the notice. However the resolutions passed in the said AGM will be subject to the outcome of the CP. The matter is posted on 25.02.2014 at 10.30 AM.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1641 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... paying lump sum charges to the HRTC which can be construed as service charges. It is only the reimbursement of pre determined rates. Same view has been taken by other Benches of the Tribunal in following cases “1. Bangalore Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Office ITAT Bangalore A Bench(2012)149TTJ(Bang)102 2. Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT(Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai A Bench (2012)148TTJ(Mumbai)581 3. Sharma Kajaria & Co. Vs. DCIT ITAT Kolkata A Bench (2012) 145 TTJ(Kol)1 4. The Karnavati Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Ahmedabad D Bench (2012)144TTJ(Ahd)769 5. ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITAT Lucknow A Bench (2012)156 TTJ(Lucknow) 569 Therefore, we are of the opinion that no tax was required to be deducted u/s 194J. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hold that no tax is deductible by the assessee authority. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1640 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - various input services - Place of removal - Held that: - the credit taken up to the stage where goods have reached from the place of removal would be admissible if the same can be related to business of manufacture - in respect of exports place of removal would be port.
Even though the definition was amended on 1-4-2008 and words 'from the place of removal' in the definition and definition of input services were replaced by 'up to the place of removal', once we take a view that the port has to be treated as place of removal in respect of exports, the services utilized by the appellant would be covered even after the amendment of the definition. Moreover by the very words used for in respect of different services would show that they have nexus to the goods manufactured and exported and therefore it cannot be said that they have nothing to do with the business of manufacture.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1639 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Recovery of service tax due and payable by the service provider M/s. Ashish Enterprises - section 87 of FA - Held that:- Considering the provision of Section 87 of the Act when any amount payable by a person to the credit of the Central Government is not paid, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to recover the amount by one or more of the modes mentioned in Section 87 of the Act and as per Section 87(b)(i) of the Act, the Central Excise Officer may, by notice in writing, require any other person from whom money is due or may become due to such person, or who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of such person, to pay to the credit of the Central Government either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice, not being before the money becomes due or is held, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due from such person or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount.
Thus, there can be a recovery of the amount due and payable by the service provider from the petitioner, out of the amount which is due and payable by the petitioner to the service provider and which is held by the petitioner - Therefore, when an amount of more than ₹ 2 crores is due and payable by the petitioner to the service provider, which is held by the petitioner to be paid to the service provider, out of which the petitioner is directed to make payment of ₹ 38,27,023/ towards the Service Tax due and payable by the service provider, it cannot be said that the impugned notice/communication is in anyway without jurisdiction and/or without authority under the law. The impugned demand is absolutely in consonance with Section 87 of the Act.
It cannot be said that the impugned demand is illegal and/or arbitrary and/or without jurisdiction and authority under the law - appeal dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1638 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Trust (Order No. A/1158/13/CSTB/C-I dated 24/05/2013 and Bhogavati Janseva Trust (Order No. A/1274-1279/13/CSTB/C-I dated 12/06/2013 have held that the services of sugarcane harvesting and transportation is not classifiable under Manpower Supply Service and is more appropriately covered under Business Auxiliary Service. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and the appeals be allowed. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. Inasmuch as the issue has been decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in the case laws cited supra, following the same, in the present case also, we hold that the impugned demands are not sustainable in law and accordingly we set aside the same and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. 6. The appeals are allowed and stay applications are also disposed of.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1637 - SUPREME COURT
Event of inconsistency between the terms and conditions of the licenses issued by TRAI - Permission of direct connectivity to terminate traffic - Power of TRAI to fix the terms and conditions of inter connectivity between service providers - Power under sub-ordinate legislation - overriding effect - Power to Regulate versus Power to prohibit - HELD THAT:- the Authority can make regulations on various matters specified in other sections including Sections 8(1), 8(4), 11(1)(b), 12(4) and 13. Further that the regulations made under Section 36(1) and (2) are in the nature of subordinate legislation and are required to be laid before each House of Parliament in terms of Section 37 and Parliament can approve, modify or annul the same. Further that a restrictive interpretation of Section 36(1) with reference to Clauses (a), (b) and (d) of Section 36(2) will make the provision otiose and the Court should not adopt that course
Further stated that the power conferred upon the Authority to issue an order fixing the rates at which the telecommunication services are to be provided within and outside India including the rates at which messages are required to be transmitted to any country outside India and the power vested in the authority under Section 12(4) and 13 to issue directions to the service providers cannot be controlled by making regulations under Section 36(1).
Power to Regulate versus Power to prohibit - HELD THAT:- The question essentially is one of degree and it is impossible to fix any definite point at which “regulation” ends and “prohibition” begins. - the term ‘regulate’ is elastic enough to include the power to issue directions or to make regulations and the mere fact that the expression “as may be provided in the regulations” appearing in clauses (vii) and (viii) of Section 11(1)(b) has not been used in other clauses of that sub-section does not mean that the regulations cannot be framed under Section 36(1) on the subjects specified in clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 11(1)(b).
Power of the Authority / TRAI - Section 36 - HELD THAT:- there is nothing in the language of Section 36(2) from which it can be inferred that the provisions contained therein control the exercise of power by the Authority under Section 36(1) or that Section 36(2) restricts the scope of Section 36(1).
Power under sub-ordinate legislation - Power to issue directions - HELD THAT:- the power vested in the Authority under Section 36(1) to make regulations is wide and pervasive. The exercise of this power is only subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed under Section 35 thereof. There is no other limitation on the exercise of power by the Authority under Section 36(1). It is not controlled or limited by Section 36(2) or Sections 11, 12 and 13.
The cases may now be listed before an appropriate Bench for deciding the questions framed vide order dated 6.2.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.3298/2005 and some of the connected matters
-
2013 (12) TMI 1636 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der-in-original, dated 19 February 2013 upon the petitioners. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order, dated 19 February 2013 with directions to the Adjudicating Authority respondent No. 3 to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter decide all the issues raised in the show cause notice, dated 22 December 2010 in accordance with law. 7. In order to obviate any difficulty about the service of notice by the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent No. 3 on 20 December 2013 at 11.00 a.m. for hearing of the notice. Adjudication proceedings shall be expedited and completed preferably by 31 January 2014 . 8. It is clarified that at this stage we have not gone into the merits of the contentions of the parties. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 10. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this Court.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1635 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... h Court. A contrary view is reflected in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) where several services like canteen, rent-a-cab/transportation, insurance and health insurance policy for employees was held to fall within “input service”, provided in relation to the manufacturing activity of the assessee. 5. There is thus apparent a conflict of opinion on application of the provisions of Rule 2(1) of the 2004 Rules in the peculiar factual settings. There is however no apparent conflict in the interpretation of Rule 2(1) of the 2004 Rules. 6. Since we discern a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, we waive the pre-deposit requirement and stay further proceedings for realization of the assessed liability, pending disposal of the appeals. Stay applications are accordingly disposed of. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1634 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the Respondents are siphoning off the funds. 46. I have considered the submission. It is pertinent to mention here that in the course of proceedings M/s Bizerba has already vacated the premises belonging to the Rl Company and it is now lying vacant. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, this allegation is rejected being infructuous. 47. After conclusion of the arguments, the Respondents have filed Miscellaneous Application seeking permission to let out the premises. Since I do not find any force in the petition, therefore the Respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of letting out the premises. 48. On the basis of the foregoing discussions I have come to the conclusion that the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Order is as follows - Order 1. C.P stands dismissed. 2. Interim order if any and C.A, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Let copy of order be circulated to all concerned.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1633 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... he relief accordingly.” Since the issue raised is fully covered by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for the A.Y. 2004-2005, under similar set of facts, we do not find infirmity in the first appellate order on the issue in favour of the assessee based on the said order of the Tribunal under similar facts during the assessment year under consideration. The same is upheld. The grounds involving the issue are thus rejected.” 4. As the issue is identical in this year, we find no reason to take different view. We, therefore, following the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case referred (Supra), confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss all the grounds taken by the Revenue. 5. We, therefore, following the decisions of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 24-12-2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1632 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... appellant s favour in their own case vide Tribunal s Final Order No. A/57559-57560/2013 dated 16.8.2013 and in view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the Cenvat credit in respect of spares of Ventra Locomotive is also not correct. 6. Shri Amresh Jain, ld. DR defended both the orders reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The issue of eligibility for Cenvat credit of tyres for Low Profile Dump Trucks being used in captive mines stands decided by the Tribunal s judgement in the appellant’s own case as mentioned above. Similarly the issue of eligibility for Cenvat credit of spares of Ventra Locomotives also used in capative mines stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgement as mentioned above. No contrary judgement has been cited. In view of this, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1631 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rticular case are actually found to have been false, obviously the next logical question would be as to where the goods which are stated to have been sold, interstate, have been actually sold within the State itself, so as to avoid much higher levels of taxation involved. Hence, to determine the above question, since the petitioner is stated to be not cooperating in that regard, despite his being on interim anticipatory bail for the past 2 months, I do not find it to be a case where the concession of pre-arrest bail, as granted vide order dated 5.9.2013, should be continued any further. 20. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed and the interim order dated 5.09.2013, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is vacated. However, nothing said hereinabove would be taken to be a finding on the merits of the case, but only observations necessary to be made, in the context of the prayer for continuing the concession of anticipatory bail. Petition disposed of.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1630 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the respondent/assessee is liable to pay service tax in the form of cash and also as to whether the respondent is entitled to utilise Cenvat Credit for paying service tax?
Held that: - the respondent/assessee is not liable to pay service tax in the form of cash and also entitled to utilise Cenvat credit for the purpose of paying tax - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Versus Hero Honda Motors Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that there is no legal bar to the utilisation of Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax on the GTA services.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1629 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for that purpose. Needless to state, but we make it clear that as and when the trial is conducted, it will be decided on the basis of the evidence, which will be brought on record during the course of the trial. 33. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will surrender to the City Police Station Jalgaon, within two weeks hereof. The Sessions case arising out of Crime/FIR No. 13/2006 registered at the City Police Station Jalgaon on 3.2.2006 is hereby transferred to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule, incharge of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon seized of this matter will transfer the records of the concerned proceeding within four weeks to the said Court. Registrar General of the Bombay High Court is directed to see to it that necessary follow up steps are taken forthwith. Registry to send a copy of this Judgment to the Registrar General High Court Bombay, District Judge, Jalgaon and District Judge, Dhule.
............
|
