Every claim made against an insurance company in respect of a loss, would be a claim within purview of claims “requiring to be paid or settled” under section 64UM(2) of Insurance Act.
J K College Of Nursing & Paramedicals vs. UOI & ORS (Delhi High Court)- It was held that if any establishment or employer claims to be not covered under the said Act, then it is for the employer to place sufficient cogent and convincing material before the designated authority in an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act, so as to satisfy the Authority with regard to non-applicability of the Act and further held that on failure to place any such material, the onus cannot be shifted on the EPF authorities to prove the applicability of the Act. It was yet further held that the EPF authorities under no circumstances can be in possession of necessary records evidencing the extent of strength of employees in any particular establishment.
Sri Rajeswari Agencies V. Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer II, Sales Tax – Declaration Forms – Arrears Of Tax – C Form Cannot Be Refused To Be Issued On Ground Of Arrears Of Tax – Central Sales Tax Act (74 Of 1956), S. 9(2) – Central Sales Tax (Registration And Turnover) Rules, 1957, Form C.
Manori Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3), Mumbai.The appellant has purchased debts of amount due to Rose Patel Mercantile Co. Ltd. for Rs.10,85,000/- by paying the said amount on 10-1-1996 Rs. 5,00,000/- and on 29-1-1996 Rs. 5,85,000/-. The amount was due from Qualitron Components Ltd. Unfortunately due to losses the company closed down its operations and ultimately wound up by the order of Gujarat High Court. The Assessing Officer has clearly pointed out that the said debts of Rs. 10,85,000/- was not trading debt. Therefore the conditions specified u/s. 16(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) is not fulfilled as the amount has not been taken into consideration while arriving to the profit of the appellant company.
Delhi HC Reserves the Judgement in the case related to applicability of of service tax on renting of immovable Property on 20.05.2011 after hearing the submission of by way of rejoinder from Sr. Counsels Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. S. Ganesh and Mr. PK Sahu, Advocate (a fromer IRS officer). To ascertain whether renting of immovable property is taxable service or not, the test should not be whether there is value addition or not. The concept of value added tax is different for different tax laws.
ACIT Vs M/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) – A perusal of the terms and conditions as also the invoices as found in the paper book clearly shows that sales tax and excise duty had been collected on the supply of materials by the vendors to the assessee. In these circumstances, in view of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. in S.L.P. No. 18012/2009 dated 17-08-2010, referred to supra, we are of the view that the transaction involved in the present case is a contract for sale and not a contract for carrying out any works.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the duty has been paid in excess of the amount finally held to be payable, unless the excess duty paid has been refunded, the assessee could claim cenvat credit as the department could not get the duty twice.
The Supreme Court ruled last week that a mortgagor can file suits for redemption so long as the mortgage subsists. Dismissal of an earlier suit for redemption would not bar the mortgagor from filing a second such suit, the court held in the case, L K Trust vs EDC Ltd. In this case, Falcon Retreat Ltd took a loan from the Goa Government-owned investment company, EDC Ltd by mortgaging its property for a hotel project.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi high court ruling and dismissed the appeal of Larsen & Toubro in its lost bid for fast patrol vessels for the Indian Coast Guard. The government sent request for proposal to several parties, and L & T claimed its bid was the lowest. However, in its commercial and technical bids, it declared its intention to claim the benefit of ‘foreign exchange rate variation benefit’, without specifying which currency was the basis of the foreign exchange component. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. & ANR. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
M/s Hans Steel Rolling Mill Versus Commnr. of Central Excise, Chandigarh – (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) – Recovery of amount due under compounded levy scheme – application of period of limitation – Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that: – In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur V. Raghuvar (India) Ltd as reported in (2000 -TMI – 45411 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), this court has categorically stated that Section 11A of the Act is not an omnibus provision which stipulates limitation for every kind of action to be taken under the Act or Rules. An example can be drawn with the Modvat Scheme, because even in that particular scheme, Section 11A of the Act had no application with regard to time limit in the administration of that scheme.
