abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. AND (i) Service Tax Appeal No. 164/2011 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 06/2010 (Commissioner) dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (ii) Service Tax Appeal No. 40524/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2013 dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (iii) Service Tax Appeal No.40525/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 14/2013 dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) 2 (iv) Service Tax Appeal No.42545/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2014 dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Appellant No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. Vs. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Respondent (formerly RPP Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) S.F. No. 454, Raghupathynaiken Palayam Poondurai Road, Railway Colony, Erode, Salem 600 032. APPEARANCE: Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the AppellantAssessee Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel & Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. 4056440575/2024 Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Decision: 30.05.2024 Per M. Ajit Kumar, These appeals filed by the Rival Parties involve common issues and hence they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd., (RPP) are providers of taxable service and are registered with the Department for providing service under the categories of: (i) Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) (ii) Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service (ECIS) (iii) Interior Decorator Service, and (iv) Construction of Residential Complex Service There are 8 appeals filed by the assessee i.e. M/s RPP and 4 departmental appeals being disposed off through this common order. The demands have been raised under 9 categories of services against which both RPP and the department are in appeal before this Tribunal. Since a large number of individual projects are involved in all the appeals put together, its proposed to group the projects service wise for ease of discussion and decision on the legal issues involved. 3 2. The index of issues discussed is given in the t
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, M.G. Road, Shillong, Meghalaya793001 & I.T.A. No. 418/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 20142015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited,.......................................................... Appellant Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony, Shillong793003 [PAN:AAACN9991J] Vs. 1 ITA No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 20142015 & ITA No.418/GAU/2019 Assessment Year:20142015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle Shillong, Aayakar Bhawan, M.G. Road, Shillong, Meghalaya793001 Appearances by: Shri Ved Jain, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : September 08, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : December 12 t h , 2022 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong dated 12.12.2018 and against order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 26.07.2019. 2. In ITA No. 45/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following grounds: (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2 ITA No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 20142015 & ITA No.418/GAU/2019 Assessment Year:20142015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned PCIT cancelling the assessment order passed by the A.O. is untenable in the absence of order of the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that all the issues raised by him in notice under Section 263 were before the A.O during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act and as such the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot be assumed. (4) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention that the issues raised by the PCIT in his notice has been examined by the A.O. and order has been passed by the A.O. after examination of the reply and evidences submitted by the assessee and due application of mind. (5) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred, both on facts and in law, in setting aside the order under section 263 of the Act without there being any adverse material either at the stage of assessment or in the revisionary proceedings. (6) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred in ignoring the content
Delhi District Court Lr Contrary To The Licence Agreement. In ... vs . on 26 May, 2010 1 IN THE COURT OF SH. DIG VINAY SINGH, ACMM (SPL. ACTS), CENTRAL, DELHI CASE NO.2262/3 UNIQUE ID NO. 02401R0027061993. M/S. TEXMACO LTD. .......COMPLAINANT PROP. OF M/S. BIRLA TEXTILES, P.O. BIRLA LINES, DELHI­110007. THROUGH SH. RADHEY LAL GOEL, CHIEF ESTATE OFFICER VS. RATTI RAM ......ACCUSED S/O. SH. SOHAN LAL R/O. QTR. NO.19­B, SHIVAJI LINES, SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI. DATE OF INSTITUTION :17.5.1993 DATE OF RESERVATION OF ORDER: 26.5.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:26.5.2010 U/S. 630 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. CC no.2262/3 Page no. 1 of 20 2 ORDER Dated 26.5.2010 Recalled :­ Pr. None. 1. Matter is fixed for orders on an application filed by the accused, which is dated 01.8.2009, seeking summoning of as many as eleven defence witnesses, as mentioned in the said application. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that earlier the accused had filed one application dated 22.1.2009, but subsequently, present fresh application was moved on 01.8.2009 and, therefore, he is pressing only the present application. 2. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant do not want to file any reply to this application and would advance oral arguments. Oral arguments from both the sides were heard before lunch today. 3. Briefly stated facts of this case are that the present complaint, u/s.630 of the Companies Act 1956 read with other sections of Indian Penal Code, was filed by the complainant M/s. Texmaco Ltd., against Sh. Ratti Ram, who is now expired. It is alleged in the complaint that Ratti Ram was allotted one quarter as a licensee by virtue of his employment in the company M/s. Birla Cotton CC no.2262/3 Page no. 2 of 20 3 Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. The quarter was to be retained by the employee only till continuation of his services. Subsequently, the present complainant acquired one mill unit alongwith and its properties and employees by virtue of a scheme of arrangement passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, dated 03.1.1983. Subsequently, the employee ceased to be in the services of the company, but did not vacate the quarter of the company and, therefore, the present complaint. During the pendency of this case, the employee expired and the present accused Ravi Dutt was substituted as an accused in this case. 4. Law is well settled that in case LRs of the deceased employee continues to withhold the property, the complaint u/s.630 of the Companies Act 1956 can be continued against them. 5. The complainant, M/s. Texmaco Ltd. filed the present complaint u/s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the accused, alleging that the complainant company is duly incorporated under the said Act and, the complainant company is the proprietor of Birla Textile Mill, located at Post Office Birla Lines, Kaml
Jabalpur, Dated : 21.11.2019. Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue against the orderdated 15.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur in ITA Nos.175 & 177/JAB/2004, has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether COD's approval is mandatory in cases where assessee is not PSU but DDOs who are disbursing the payments to the employees and contractors are forced to deduct tax as per provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act." Counsel for the parties submitted that a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was filed before the Tribunal, where the order impugned against which substantial question of law has been framed has been recalled by the Tribunal. In view of the above, it was not disputed that the present appeal has been rendered infructuous. A prayer was made that it may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ( VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA ) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Aks/ Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR S Date: 2019.11.25 15:57:22 +05'30'
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearance: MR AVINASH DESAI, SR. COUNSEL, WITH MR PRANAV MUNIGELA WITH MS KOPAL SHARRAF WITH MR ARJUN M JOSHI(11247) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS NIDHI VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. COUNSEL, WITH MR VATSAL S PARIKH(7452) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 Date : 18/11/2024 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs: "12(A) That this Hon'ble Court may issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Nov 18 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 18 21:47:06 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15406/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2024 undefined the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to set aside the Arbitral Award No.17 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 passed by Respondent No.2, bearing No.MSMED/MSEFC/DP 4671/822/2 accepting Respondent No.3's claim against the Petitioner (Annexure A). (B) Pending the hearing and until the disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may stay the operation, implementation and execution of the Arbitral Award No.17 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 passed by Respondent No.2, bearing No.MSMED/MSEFC/DP4671/822/2 accepting Respondent No.3's claim against the Petitioner (Annexure A). (C) For ad interim ex parte relief in terms of Paragraph (B) above." 2. The brief facts in the present case are that by G.O.RT. No.837 dated 24.12.2018, the Government of Telengana (Agriculture & Cooperation Department) nominated
207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Circle13(1), III, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACN0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 3996/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 200809) ACIT, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi PhaseIII, New Delhi PAN: AAACN0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv Shri Rohit Garg, Adv Shri Siddharth Joshi, Adv Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing Multiples dates and last heard on 07/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 16/06/2020 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M 1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee, M/s New Delhi Television Ltd (the appellant) in ITA number 3865/Del/2014 and The Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 13 (1), New Delhi (The Learned AO) in ITA number 3996/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 2008 09 against the order of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) XX, New Delhi (The Learned CIT A) wherein, the appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed under section 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 3/8/2012 was partly allowed. Page | 1 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3865/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 200809: "1. That on facts and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" erred in not appreciating that the order of assessment dated 3rd August 2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle13(1), New Delhi {hereinafter referred to as the "AO"} under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 {hereinafter referred to as "the Act"} is barred by limitation and hence bad in law. 1.1 That on facts and in law, the CIT (A) erred in law in holding that the impugned assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act is valid in light of the extended time limit provided under section 153 of the Act. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,16,476/ incurred by the appellant for obtaining licenses for use of accounting software were capital in nature without appreciating that acquisition of same is merely enhancement and up gradation of accounting software already in use. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO to himself determine Arms Length Price (ALP) of alleged "Transaction" / "International Transaction" of issue of Corporate Guarantee by the appellant dehors the fact that the Transfer Pricing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the "TPO"} had vide order dated 14th September 2011 accepted the ALP of all International Transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of alleged "Transaction" / "International Transaction" of issue of Corporate Guarantee without appreciating that there was no corporate guarantee given by the appellant in year under consideration for funds raised by M/s NDTV Network Plc (i.e. a subsidiary of the appellant). 3.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in observing/holding that the undertaking given by the appellant was an implicit guarantee which required benchmarking as per the provisions of Chapter X of the Act.
Clerk ­cum­Cashier, (under suspension), State Bank of India, Service Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2 Sh. Chaman Kumar s/o Sh. Radhey Lal, r/o A­10, Derawala Nagar, Delhi 3 Vipin Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Dwarka Nath Sharma, r/o 9­A Sanjay Nagar, Delhi 33 4 Raj Rani (discharged vide order Dt. 27.7.95) 5 Madan Kumar (discharged vide order dt.27.7.95) 6 Santosh Sharma (discharged vide order dt. 27.7.95) 7 Sh. K B Mehta s/o Late Sh. R C Mehta, r/o 1/42 Model Town, Delhi Date of Institution 2.1.87 R.C No. 1/86, 2/86, 4/86 & 8/86/CIU­B/BS & FC/ CBI/N.D Under Section U/s 120 B r/w 420IPC & U/s 167 IPC & Sec 5 (2) r/w Sec. 5 (1) (d) C C No.29/10 1/250 2 PC Act, 1947 Arguments concluded 16.5.2011 on Date of order 3.6.2011 JUDGMENT: FACTS OF THE CASE . Briefly the facts of this case according to prosecution are that RC­1/86­CIU(B) was registered on 15/1/86 on the basis of Source Information against Shri Raman Kumar, Ashok Kumar and others for cheating the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 5.67 lacs. RC­2/86­CIU(B) was registered on 28/1/86 on the basis of source information against Shri Raman Kumar, Vipin Kumar and others for cheating the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 18.52 lacs . RC­4/86­CIU was registered on 12/2/86 on the basis of Source Information against Shri Raman Kumar, Vipin Kumar and others for cheating the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 26.34.728/­, RC­8/86­CIU was registered on 11.7.86 on the basis of Source Information against Shri Raman Kumar , Vipin Kumar and others for cheating the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 7.63 lacs. Investigation was carried out of all the aforesaid four cases and it was found that there was a single conspiracy by the accused persons C C No.29/10 2/250 3 to cheat the State Bank of India as a result thereof the State bank of India has suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 58,16,728/­ on account of the various acts and omissions of the accused persons . 2 It is further stated that State Bank of India is a body corporate constituted by State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office in Bombay. Local branches of State Bank of India including Service Branch at 11 Parliament street, New Delhi are under the Administrative Control of Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of India, New Delhi. Clearing work between Banks is done in the clearing House which is managed and controlled by the Reserve bank of India which maintains accounts of all the banks participating in the clearing House for clearing instruments drawn upon each others. When a person having account with one Bank draws a cheque to another person, who is having his account with another Bank, the payee deposits the cheque with his bankers for collection of the proceeds of the cheque from the drawer's account with the drawee Bank . The payee's banker send the cheque for collection of the proceeds of the cheque to the drawee bank through its own Service Branch /Clearing Cell and this Branch/Cell of the collecting Bank brings the cheque to the Clearing House for C C No.29/10 3/250 4 delivery to the drawee Bank through sub slip and consolidated input statement. The representative of the Service Branch/Clearing C
Madras High Court Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram vs The Principal Chief Commissioner Of on 2 November, 2018 1 DATED: 02.11.2018 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIAM PRASAD W.A.Nos.1125 to 1128, 1130 & 1131 of 2018, W.P.Nos.13005 to 13007, 13008 to 13010, 13070 to 13072, 13041 to 13043, 11714, 11715 & 22329 to 22331 & 22333 of 2018 and Rev.Appl.Nos.79 to 82 of 2018 and Connected WMPs, CMPs and MPs. W.A.No.1125 of 2018 Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram .. Appellant vs 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry), Main Building, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), New Building, 2nd Floor, Investigation Wing, New No.45, Old No.108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit – 3 (3), Room No.120, First Floor, Investigation Wing Building, No.45, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.04.2018 passed in W.P.No.8832 of 2018 on the file of this Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 For Appellant in all ... Mr.Gopal Subramanium, W.As., for Petitioners Sr. Counsel in all WPs. And for for M/s.C.Uma and Respondent in Rev.Applns. Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel For respondents in all ... Mr.Mr.G.Rajagopalan, WAs. and WPs. and Addl. Solicitor General for Applicant in Rev.Applns. Assisted by Mr.A.P.Srinivas COMMON JUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Since, the issues involved in these Batch of cases, comprising of Writ Appeals, Writ Petitions and Review Applications are interconnected and interrelated, they were heard together and are being disposed of, by means of this Common Judgement. 2. Challenge in these batch of cases are as follows: (A) WRIT APPEALS: (i) W.A.Nos.1125 to 1128, 1130 and 1130 and 1131 of 2018, have been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patents, against the common order dated 12.04.2018, made in W.P.Nos.8832 to 8835, 8840 and 8841 of 2018. (B) WRIT PETITIONS, QUESTIONING THE COMPETENCE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY) TO SANCTION PROSECUTION TO FILE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE WRIT PETITIONERS: http://www.judis.nic.in 3 (ii) W.P.Nos.13005 and 13071 of 2018 are for issuance of declaration, declaring that the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai, 2nd respondent is not an authority having jurisdiction/competence under section 55 Block Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, to sanction prosecution
Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, Kidwai Nagar (East) ...Respondent New Delhi11 0023, India Present For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2022 & I.A Nos. 3891, 3893 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Rahul Gajanan Teni Office at 301303, A Square, Plot no. 34 ADC, Sector 26, Pradhikaran Pune, ...Appellant Maharashtra, Pin Code 411 044 Versus Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, ...Respondent Kidwai Nagar (East), Cont'd.../ 2 New Delhi11 0023, India Present For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 40 of 2022 & I.A No. 3233 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Fimo Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative Office at Shop No. 3, Ground Floor, E99, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, ...Appellant No.1 Pin Code 110007. Mr. Jai Kumar Gupta, Director, M/S Fimo Infosolutions Private Limited Office at Shop No. 3, Ground Floor, ...Appellant No.2 E99, Kamla NagarDelhi, Pin Code 11 0007. Versus Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, Kidwai Nagar (East), ...Respondent New Delhi11 0023, India. Present For Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 3 JUDGMENT (23rd September, 2025) INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) These appeals arise from the final order and judgment passed by the Competition Commission of India (Hereinafter referred to as "Commission") on 04.04.2022 under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the Act), wherein the Commission held that Appellants along with other bidders, had contravened Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) r/w Section 3 (1) of the Act. The appeals have been filed under Section 53 (b) of the Act challenging the impugned order of the Commission. Brief facts of the case 2. The commission received a general complaint dated 07.08.2018 alleging bidrigging in the tenders invited by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh for soil sample testing. The complaint related to alleged bid rigging in respect of two etenders namely, Tender 2018_AGRUP_210583_1 (Moradabad) dated 31.05.2018 ("Tender No. 1") and Tender 2018_AGRUP_212591_1 (Bareilly) dated 18.06.2018 ('Tender No. 2"), invited for the soil sample testing by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. 3. It was stated in the complaint that the following parties participated in the aforesaid two tenders of soil testing in Uttar Pradesh: Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 4 (i) Yash Solutions (ii) M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal (iii) M/s Siddhi Vinayak and Sons (iv) M/s Saraswati Sales Corporation (v) M/s Lab Traders (vi) Edward Food Research and