Uttarakhand High Court

S. 260A: Time limit to file appeal to HC begins from date of receipt of order by officer entitled to file appeal

DIT (IT) Vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd (Uttarakhand High Court)

This appeal is filed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Years 1997-98 onwards, for a period of eight years, till 2004-05. On the filing of the Appeal, an objection was raised by the respondent/ assessee, represented by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate, th...

Read More

Supply of tiles is job work if raw materials were supplied by contractee: HC

Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs M/s Jai Durge (Uttarakhand High Court)

The revisionist called in question the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, by which the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent assessee and set aside the order of the Appellate authority and also modified the order passed by the Assessing officer and set aside the tax imposed and declare...

Read More

HC reject application for condonation of delay of 1819 days as no Sufficient Cause existed

Commissioner Tax Vs M/s Hanuman Industries Kichha (Uttarakhand High Court)

Commissioner Tax Vs M/s Hanuman Industries Kichha (Uttarakhand High Court) There is delay of 1819 days’ in filing the Revision. It is stated that after receiving the copy of the judgment dated 29.01.2013, matter was discussed at various levels and the proposal was received by the Department on 01.05.2013. It is stated that Department in...

Read More

Benefit of IDS, 2016 cannot be given to Person Prosecuted u/s 420

M/s Hillways Construction Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Department and others (Uttarakhand High Court)

M/s Hillways Construction Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Department and others (Uttarakhand High Court); Admittedly Section 420 of IPC is an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC. Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, of which the petitioner is seeking benefit, categorically stipulates that in case prosecution is going...

Read More

TDS on payment to Carrier under contracts for transporting petroleum products in business is deductible U/s. 194C and not U/s./ 194I

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Uttarakhand High Court)

Assessee is obliged to deduct tax on the payment made by it to the Carrier under the contracts for transporting the petroleum products in the business in which the respondent assessee is engaged. On the one hand, it is the case of the appellant Department that the case of the respondent assessee falls under Section 194-I of the Income Tax...

Read More

Samosa is Cooked Food not Namkeen: Uttarakhand HC

Sarva Shri Neeraj Misthan Bhandar Vs The Commissioner, Commercial Tax (Uttarakhand High Court)

In this case, we are concerned with the question as to whether Samosa is to be treated as namkeen or cooked food and we are not asked to pronounce upon whether it is to be treated as unclassified items, the choice is narrowed down to whether it is to be treated as namkeen or as cooked food. ...

Read More

Adjustment of refund with demand u/s 245 cannot be done without application of mind

CIT (TDS) & others Vs State Bank of India & others (Uttarakhand High Court)

Uttarakhand High Court held In the case of CIT (TDS) & others vs. State Bank of India & others that every authority of discretionary power would be obliged to act, in the first place, being guided by relevant considerations and ignoring irrelevant considerations. ...

Read More

VAT not leviable on 40% of restaurant bill, which is subject to Service Tax

Valley Hotel & Resorts Vs The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Dehradun (Uttrankhand High Court)

Where the element of service has been declared and brought to tax vide notification dated 6 June 2012, by which Service tax is levied on 40% of the billed value in restaurant, no VAT can be imposed thereon on such amount. Copy of the decision is enclosed herewith....

Read More

Even in a composite contract, off-shore profits cannot be assessed by dept. without showing its attribution to PE

Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs The Director of Income-tax -1 (Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital)

Being a resident of Korea, appellant is governed by the Income-tax Laws applicable to the class of assessees as that of the appellant as prevalent in Korea. Therefore, it has a tax identity in Korea. In addition thereto, appellant has submitted to the jurisdiction of Indian Taxing Authorities by furnishing return of income and, thereby, ...

Read More

S. 43B Employees contributions to EPF/ESIC beyond due dates specified in relevant statutes, but before due date of filing ROI allowable

The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital)

Due date referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act must be read in conjunction with section 43B(b) of the Act and a reading of the same would make it amply clear that the due date as mentioned in Section 36(1)(va), is the due date as mentioned in section 43B(b)...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,481)
Company Law (7,381)
Custom Duty (8,503)
DGFT (4,542)
Excise Duty (4,489)
Fema / RBI (4,704)
Finance (4,979)
Income Tax (37,273)
SEBI (3,988)
Service Tax (3,719)

Search Posts by Date

June 2021