Explore the Roy Mitra vs. ACIT case (ITA No. 1703/2009) involving Sec. 194C, TDS, and contractual disputes. Key rulings and implications revealed.
To file a petition u/s 397, 398 of the Act, one has to fulfil the requirement as contemplated under the above provision of law. Unless and until the above criterion is fulfilled, the petition is not maintainable. The persons who can qualify to file the petition are (i) in case the company is having a share capital, not less than 100 members; or (ii) not less than 1/10th of the total number of its members, whichever is less.
Since the appellant is not providing output services as categorized in Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, debiting the said amount in the Cenvat account needs to be rectified by directing the appellant to debit or pay the entire amount invoked in both the appeals as service tax paid for receipt GTA services through PLA or by TR-6 challan.
Assessee is thus entitled to claim deduction both under Sec.36(1)(vii) and Sec.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The only limitation is that the amount of deduction shall not exceed the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In the present case there is no dispute that provisions of Sec.36(1)(viia) applies to the Assessee and also the fact the amount of deduction relating to bad debts written off is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account.
The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 was the first major legislation in independent India for providing comprehensive Social Security to the workers in the organized sector. The first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru inaugurated the ESI Scheme by becoming its first insured Person on February, 24th 1952. Since then, you have come a long way and have covered more than 6 crore beneficiaries with matchless cash benefits and full medical care with no limit on individual expenditure.
Instruction No. 2/2012 Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Instructions to subordinate authorities – Condonation of delay in filing return of income under section 119(2)(b) in case of applicants who have made investment in 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003 issued by Government of India and opted for scheme of cumulative interest
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent appearing in-person, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the High Court does not require any interference, particularly when the issue raised in this Appeal has already been decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1932 of 1982, wherein it was categorically held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public servant
We have today delivered judgment in Civil Appeal arising out SLP (C) No.26558 of 2010 (M/s Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai) and other connected appeals setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of the Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals. We have also delivered a separate judgment in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32450 of 2010 (M/s ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai) and other connected appeal affirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra). These two appeals are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid two judgments. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Central Government has issued a Notification dated 01.03.2002 and in the said Notification it has classified the Electronic Automatic Regulators under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. In the present appeal, the Revenue effect is less than Rs.6 lacs and since the Revenue itself has classified the goods in dispute under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89 from 01.03.2002, it may not be necessary for this Court to consider in detail the appeal filed by the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the period after 01.03.2002, in view of the Notification issued by the Central Government, the goods, namely Electronic Automatic Regulators would fall under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. With this observation and clarification, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.
After hearing the matter for some time, we notice that the Revenue has not produced the order passed by CESTAT dated 10.01.2010 and the only order produced by them is the interim passed by CESTAT and not the final orders against which the appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the High Court. . In the absence of the order passed by the CESTAT on merits, which has been affirmed by the High Court, it would not be proper for us to decide the lis between the parties. Further, we would be handicapped while appreciating the stand of the Assessee as well as the Revenue, while appreciating the legal issues that the parties would urge before us. In that view of the matter, we reject the appeal solely on the ground that the Revenue has not filed the appropriate papers before this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
