Search: section 68

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

C.A. No.-000821-000821 - 2000Supreme Court25 Jan 2001

68,310/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellants sent their replies, inter-alia, submitting that what was imported were not goods and there could be no excise duty on services since the remittances were in Form A-2 and tax at source under the Income-Tax Act was paid in respect of the said contracts

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

364 --------------- TOTAL INCOME 3,40,59,506 Rounded off 3,40,59,510 7. Assessed accordingly. Give credit for prepaid taxes. Charge interest u/s 234B and 234C. Initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue demand notice and challan." 10. Thus, in the said order, valuation of the land as made by the District Valuation Officer

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. G. DAYARAM & CO

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG vs. WOODCRAFT PRODUCTS LIMITED, CALCUTTA