Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P vs M/S D. S. M. Group Of Industries on 9 December, 2004

M/S G.P.Ceramics Pvt.Ltd vs Commr.Trade Tax Up on 19 November, 2008

However, in Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. v. DSM Group of Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657], another Bench of this Court opined that when an application for exemption is filed for an expansion or diversification, Explanation 5 appended to Section 4-A(6) specifying the word `unit' must receive a liberal construction to include not only a new unit but also a nuit which is sought to be expanded, modernized or diversified, stating :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 24 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S. Nashik Strips Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik on 15 December, 2009

Furthermore; the decision of the Honble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Woodmen Industries v. Commissioner  2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tribunal) was specifically in the context of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and the same has been maintained by the Honble Apex Court in Commissioner v. Woodmen Industries  2004 (170) E.L.T. A307 (S.C.). Under the circumstances, it is submitted that no penalty is imposable on the firm under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 30 March, 2005

Mr. Gupta in support of its contention that all units of assessee must be treated in their entirety referred to a recent decision of this Court in Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Vs. DSM Group of Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657]. In that case the assessee had different units. It expanded only some units by making a fixed capital investment of 50 crores or more in terms of the Industrial Policy as also the exemptions notifications issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The State, however, raised a contention that such sum of Rs. 50 crores must be spent on each unit of the company and not on its industrial undertaking as a whole. The provisions of the notification dated 21.2.1997 as also Section 4-A(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, it was held, did not justify the contention that for the purpose of grant of exemption, each unit is to be considered to be a separate unit stating:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 145 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Assistant Commr.(Ct) Ltu And Anr vs Amara Raja Batteries Ltd on 27 July, 2009

In Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. v. DSM Group of Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657], this Court opined that when an application for exemption is filed for an expansion or diversification, Explanation 5 appended to Section 4-A(6) specifying the word `unit' must receive a liberal construction to include not only a new unit but also a unit which is sought to be expanded, modernized or diversified, stating :
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 13 - S B Sinha - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... vs Reema Chawla on 11 March, 2024

[See Commissioner, Trade Tax v. DSM Group of Industries (2005) 1 SCC 657 (SCC para 26) ; TISCO Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 4 SCC 272 (SCC paras 42- 45) ; State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 108 ; Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs [1994] Supp (3) SCC 606 ; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 725 and Reiz Electrocontrols (P.) Ltd. v.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd, ... vs Cit Ltu, Mumbai on 1 September, 2021

N u c l e a r P o we r C o r p o r a t i o n o f In d i a L i mi t e d • The object of provisions of taxing statute being to promote the setting of the new units and to increase the production of goods such provision has to be interpreted liberally so that the object can be achieved, as held by Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Trade Tax vs. DSM Group of Industries, reported in 2005 UPTC page 121. Similar views have been expressed in the following Supreme Court decisions:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 24 October, 2019

Insofar as the present assessee has also not brought on record any estimate, plan, drawing, etc to establish that the exercise of diversification was one and not two, the Tribunal has not erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and in distinguishing the ratio in the case of DSM Group (supra). As to rule to be applied, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Tribunal has not erred in placing the burden on the assessee to establish that it was the a single diversification. In absence of the burden to prove being discharged, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S D Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next