In the case of M/s Quality Fabricators and Erectors Vs. The Deputy Director, DGCEI, Zonal Unit Mumbai and Others, it was held that in case of non payment of service tax by the assessee, the notices for recovery cannot be issued to assessee’s debtors unless the liability has been crystallised.
HC held that when assessee participated in reassessment proceedings by furnishing the required documents and challenges the reopening subsequently before the high court by filing a writ petition then it would be not be appropriate for the high court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction because the assessee has already chosen AO to exercise jurisdiction in the matter and to challenge his order before the appropriate appellate forum provided under the Act.
In the instant case although the appellant assessee has called upon us to draw an inference that the burden shifted to the revenue in the present case once it was established that the payments were made and repaid by cheque we need not hasten and adopt that view after having given our thought to various […]
Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that mesne profits are capital receipts in the hands of the assessee and not revenue receipts chargeable to tax?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that payment to Master Card International and Visa Card International without deduction of tax at source is not disallowable u/s. 40(a)(i) in view of the Article 26(3) of the Indo US DTAA, when the provisions […]
1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
To recapitulate briefly, the assessee is a company as defined under Section 2(17) of the Act and is also in the business of operating qualifying ship(s). It is also not in dispute that it owns a qualifying ship and fulfillment of this condition permits the assessee to exercise its option for computation of income from the business of operating qualifying ships under Chapter XIIG of the Act.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was right in law in holding, that, the interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the Year of purchase of securities.
Assessee inter alia contended that the consideration was received as per the settlement agreement and vetted by Tomlin order of the Court of U.K. in consideration of restraining the assessee from the use of the name ‘Longman’ and as such, it is a capital receipt not liable to tax at all.
