Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.68 seconds)
Union Of India vs M/S Intercontinental Consultants And ... on 7 March, 2018 cites

The Province Of Madras, Represented By ... vs Boddu Paidanna And Sons, Represented By ... on 5 September, 1941

“The argument confuses the incidence of taxation with the machinery provided for the collection thereof,” and reference was made to In re the Central Provinces and Berar Act 14 of 1938[AIR 1939 FC 1, 6 : 1939 FCR 18] , Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons [1942 FCR 90, 101 : AIR 1942 FC 33] and Governor-General in Council v. Province of Madras [1945 FCR 179 : AIR 1945 FC 98] . This Court then summarised the law as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 145 - Full Document

The Central Bank Of India vs Their Workmen(And Connected Appeals) on 12 May, 1959

11) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel argued for the appellant, ably assisted by Ms. Nisha Bagchi, advocate who also made significant contribution by arguing some of the nuances of the issue involved. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department was that prior to April 19, 2006 i.e. in the absence of Rule 5 of the Rules, the value of taxable services was covered by Section 67 of the Act. As per this Section, the value of taxable services in relation to consulting engineering services provided or to be provided by a consulting engineer to 1 (1970) 77 ITR 107 2 Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Workmen, etc., (1960) 1 SCR 200; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, (1961) 2 SCR 679; CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, (1969) 74 ITR 41; Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of M.P. & Ors., (1971) 81 ITR 105 and CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 82 ITR 44 3 (1961) 3 WLR 788 (QB) Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 15 of 44 the client shall be the gross amount charged for a consideration or in money from the client in respect of engineering services. The expression ‘gross amount charged’ would clearly include all the amounts which were charged by the service provider and would not be limited to the remuneration received from the customer. The very connotation ‘gross amount charged’ denotes the total amount which is received in rendering those services and would include the other amounts like transportation, office rent, office appliances, furniture and equipments etc. It was submitted that this expenditure or cost would be part of consideration for taxable services. It was, thus, argued that essential input cost had to be included in arriving at gross amount charged by a service provider.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 187 - S K Das - Full Document

Babaji Kondaji Garad Etc vs The Nasik Merchants Co-Operative Bank ... on 31 October, 1983

11) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel argued for the appellant, ably assisted by Ms. Nisha Bagchi, advocate who also made significant contribution by arguing some of the nuances of the issue involved. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department was that prior to April 19, 2006 i.e. in the absence of Rule 5 of the Rules, the value of taxable services was covered by Section 67 of the Act. As per this Section, the value of taxable services in relation to consulting engineering services provided or to be provided by a consulting engineer to 1 (1970) 77 ITR 107 2 Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Workmen, etc., (1960) 1 SCR 200; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, (1961) 2 SCR 679; CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, (1969) 74 ITR 41; Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of M.P. & Ors., (1971) 81 ITR 105 and CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 82 ITR 44 3 (1961) 3 WLR 788 (QB) Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 15 of 44 the client shall be the gross amount charged for a consideration or in money from the client in respect of engineering services. The expression ‘gross amount charged’ would clearly include all the amounts which were charged by the service provider and would not be limited to the remuneration received from the customer. The very connotation ‘gross amount charged’ denotes the total amount which is received in rendering those services and would include the other amounts like transportation, office rent, office appliances, furniture and equipments etc. It was submitted that this expenditure or cost would be part of consideration for taxable services. It was, thus, argued that essential input cost had to be included in arriving at gross amount charged by a service provider.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 174 - D A Desai - Full Document

The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960

11) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel argued for the appellant, ably assisted by Ms. Nisha Bagchi, advocate who also made significant contribution by arguing some of the nuances of the issue involved. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department was that prior to April 19, 2006 i.e. in the absence of Rule 5 of the Rules, the value of taxable services was covered by Section 67 of the Act. As per this Section, the value of taxable services in relation to consulting engineering services provided or to be provided by a consulting engineer to 1 (1970) 77 ITR 107 2 Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Workmen, etc., (1960) 1 SCR 200; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, (1961) 2 SCR 679; CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, (1969) 74 ITR 41; Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of M.P. & Ors., (1971) 81 ITR 105 and CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 82 ITR 44 3 (1961) 3 WLR 788 (QB) Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 15 of 44 the client shall be the gross amount charged for a consideration or in money from the client in respect of engineering services. The expression ‘gross amount charged’ would clearly include all the amounts which were charged by the service provider and would not be limited to the remuneration received from the customer. The very connotation ‘gross amount charged’ denotes the total amount which is received in rendering those services and would include the other amounts like transportation, office rent, office appliances, furniture and equipments etc. It was submitted that this expenditure or cost would be part of consideration for taxable services. It was, thus, argued that essential input cost had to be included in arriving at gross amount charged by a service provider.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 800 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai on 24 February, 1969

11) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel argued for the appellant, ably assisted by Ms. Nisha Bagchi, advocate who also made significant contribution by arguing some of the nuances of the issue involved. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department was that prior to April 19, 2006 i.e. in the absence of Rule 5 of the Rules, the value of taxable services was covered by Section 67 of the Act. As per this Section, the value of taxable services in relation to consulting engineering services provided or to be provided by a consulting engineer to 1 (1970) 77 ITR 107 2 Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Workmen, etc., (1960) 1 SCR 200; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, (1961) 2 SCR 679; CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, (1969) 74 ITR 41; Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of M.P. & Ors., (1971) 81 ITR 105 and CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 82 ITR 44 3 (1961) 3 WLR 788 (QB) Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 15 of 44 the client shall be the gross amount charged for a consideration or in money from the client in respect of engineering services. The expression ‘gross amount charged’ would clearly include all the amounts which were charged by the service provider and would not be limited to the remuneration received from the customer. The very connotation ‘gross amount charged’ denotes the total amount which is received in rendering those services and would include the other amounts like transportation, office rent, office appliances, furniture and equipments etc. It was submitted that this expenditure or cost would be part of consideration for taxable services. It was, thus, argued that essential input cost had to be included in arriving at gross amount charged by a service provider.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 168 - A N Grover - Full Document

Bimal Chandra Ranerjee vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 1970

11) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel argued for the appellant, ably assisted by Ms. Nisha Bagchi, advocate who also made significant contribution by arguing some of the nuances of the issue involved. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department was that prior to April 19, 2006 i.e. in the absence of Rule 5 of the Rules, the value of taxable services was covered by Section 67 of the Act. As per this Section, the value of taxable services in relation to consulting engineering services provided or to be provided by a consulting engineer to 1 (1970) 77 ITR 107 2 Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Workmen, etc., (1960) 1 SCR 200; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, (1961) 2 SCR 679; CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, (1969) 74 ITR 41; Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of M.P. & Ors., (1971) 81 ITR 105 and CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 82 ITR 44 3 (1961) 3 WLR 788 (QB) Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 15 of 44 the client shall be the gross amount charged for a consideration or in money from the client in respect of engineering services. The expression ‘gross amount charged’ would clearly include all the amounts which were charged by the service provider and would not be limited to the remuneration received from the customer. The very connotation ‘gross amount charged’ denotes the total amount which is received in rendering those services and would include the other amounts like transportation, office rent, office appliances, furniture and equipments etc. It was submitted that this expenditure or cost would be part of consideration for taxable services. It was, thus, argued that essential input cost had to be included in arriving at gross amount charged by a service provider.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 73 - K S Hegde - Full Document

C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad on 12 August, 1971

11) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel argued for the appellant, ably assisted by Ms. Nisha Bagchi, advocate who also made significant contribution by arguing some of the nuances of the issue involved. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department was that prior to April 19, 2006 i.e. in the absence of Rule 5 of the Rules, the value of taxable services was covered by Section 67 of the Act. As per this Section, the value of taxable services in relation to consulting engineering services provided or to be provided by a consulting engineer to 1 (1970) 77 ITR 107 2 Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Workmen, etc., (1960) 1 SCR 200; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, (1961) 2 SCR 679; CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, (1969) 74 ITR 41; Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of M.P. & Ors., (1971) 81 ITR 105 and CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 82 ITR 44 3 (1961) 3 WLR 788 (QB) Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 15 of 44 the client shall be the gross amount charged for a consideration or in money from the client in respect of engineering services. The expression ‘gross amount charged’ would clearly include all the amounts which were charged by the service provider and would not be limited to the remuneration received from the customer. The very connotation ‘gross amount charged’ denotes the total amount which is received in rendering those services and would include the other amounts like transportation, office rent, office appliances, furniture and equipments etc. It was submitted that this expenditure or cost would be part of consideration for taxable services. It was, thus, argued that essential input cost had to be included in arriving at gross amount charged by a service provider.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 327 - A N Grover - Full Document

Union Of India vs Bengal Shrachi Housing Development ... on 7 November, 2017

13) In the aid of this submission, the learned counsel sought to take help from principle laid down in excise law and submitted that it is held by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Limited & Anr. 4 that same principles as applicable in excise law are applicable while examining service tax matters. Reliance was placed on paragraph 22 of the said judgment to support this proposition. However, we may point out at this stage itself that the context in which the observations were made were entirely different. The issue was as to whether 4 (2018) 1 SCC 311 Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 17 of 44 service tax, which is an indirect tax, can be passed on by the service provider to the recepient of the service and, in this hue, the matter was discussed, as can be seen from the combined reading of paragraphs 21 and 22 which are to the following effect:
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 13 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983

14) It was also submitted that while dealing with the valuation of a taxable service, the provision which deals with valuation has to be taken into consideration and no assistance can be taken from charging section, as held in Union of India & Ors. v. Bombay Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 with Ors. Page 18 of 44 Tyre International Limited & Ors.5:
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 507 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Governor-General vs Province Of Madras on 21 January, 1945

In a subsequent case, Governor-General-in- Council v. Province of Madras [1945 FCR 179 : AIR 1945 FC 98] , the Privy Council referred to both Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938 [AIR 1939 FC 1, 6 : 1939 FCR 18] and Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons [1942 FCR 90, 101 : AIR 1942 FC 33] and affirmed that when excise was levied on a manufacturer at the point of the first sale by him “that may be because the taxation authority imposing a duty of excise finds it convenient to impose that duty at the moment when the excisable article leaves the factory or workshop for the first time on the occasion of its sale. But that method of collecting the tax is an accident of administration; it is not of the essence of the duty of excise, which is attracted by the manufacture itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1   2 Next