New User / Register | Bookmarks | Annual Subscription | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
           
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Search in Case Laws

Refine Search / Filter

Case Laws
Text
Search as Search in: -

Filter [Optional]
Include In:
Date From To DD-MM-YYYY
Law - Section [Only for Income Tax]
Court - City
Exclude

OR
TMI Citation
or TMI - ID

To use various search filters - clik the link Refine Search / Filter above

Search Results

Showing 1301 to 1315 of 6776 Records

   

1301

2010 (3) TMI 756 - Gujarat High Court

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Himgiri Foods Limited

Revised return - The provision OF section 143(1B) , mandates that if after the issuance of intimation, a revised return is furnished by an assessee un.....

.......... furnished by an assessee under sub-section (5) section 139 it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to process the revised return and amend the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) on the basis of the revised return. At this stage there is no question of going into the validity of the return filed under section 139(5) of the Act, if the revised return is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. An intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act cannot be equated with an assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act and the Assessing Officer cannot refuse to process the revised return and modify the intimation in accordance with section 143(1B) of the Act. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in the absence of any question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less any substantial question.

1302

2010 (3) TMI 935 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax Versus Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd.

-

.......... 1-03-1997 Rs. 17,500 per sq. mtr. 31-03-1998 Rs. 18,000 per sq. mtr. (The value declared in Form 37-I and as approved by the competent authorities). It is also pertinent to note that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has clearly mentioned that the value declared in Form No. 37-I was approved by the competent authorities. These being the facts, in our opinion, no interference is called for. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) in this regard. Resultantly, the common ground raised by the Revenue in all the four appeals is rejected. The grounds of the cross objections filed by the assessee are not pressed by learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, these are being dismissed as not pressed. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed. The order was pronounced in the court on March 5, 2010.

1303

2010 (3) TMI 752 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus RKBK. Ltd.

Condonation of dely - whether the provision of section 260A of the Act 1961 has expressly or by necessary implication excluded the provisions of secti.....

.......... a purposive meaning should be encouraged by the court. In view of the above amendment carried out by Parliament in 2009 I am inclined to give an interpretation of section 260A, that it did not exclude the applicability of section 5. This issue of the effect of the amendment was not before the Supreme Court and the High Courts when the above decisions were pronounced. So, I can take note of the later development and depart from the ratio of the above decisions. I have also had the privilege of reading the draft judgment proposed by my noble and learned brother and I am in full agreement with the reasons and conclusions of his Lordship in making section 5 applicable to section 260A appeal. Therefore section 5 of the Limitation Act is squarely applicable to section 260A appeals. 25. In the facts and circumstances sufficient cause has been shown for preferring this appeal beyond the time stipulated by section 260A and I condone the delay. 26. The section 5 application is allowed.

1304

2010 (3) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

DIASTAR JEWELLERY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

Confiscation- show cause notice was issued which culminated into adjudication order whereby the demand for customs duty on the shortage of gold notice.....

.......... In this connection we find reliance of the learned DR on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Systems and Components Pvt. Limited, applicable and on this basis, we do not find justification to send the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority. Since we find that penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs imposed on the appellants in rendering diamonds liable to confiscation and fine in lieu of confiscation imposed on DJ reasonable, we uphold the Commissioner s order in respect of both these decisions. We also uphold the duty demand on the shortage and since DJ has already paid the duty, the Commissioner s order adjusting the same is upheld. The department has not challenged the penalty on the Managing Director before Hon ble Bombay High Court and therefore, there is no change in the decision as regards the Managing Director. In the result, appeal filed by the Managing Director is allowed and the appeal filed by DJ is rejected. (Pronounced in the Court on 3-3-2010)

1305

2010 (2) TMI 335 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD

SARLA PERFORMANCE FIBERS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VAPI

100% EOU- The appellant-company is a 100% Export Oriented Unit, inter alia, engaged in manufacture of polyester yarn. As per show cause notice, the du.....

.......... ion drawn by us with regard to the contention that education cess is only a surcharge and is in the nature of enhancement of duties. Therefore, once education cess is added to the customs duties to arrive at aggregate of customs duties, the question of charging education cess again does not arise. Because once it is a enhancement, it is part of the relevant type of the duty. What is required for the purpose of proviso to Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is to arrive at aggregate of customs duties and once we take a view that education cess is part of the customs duty and is an enhancement, the question of adding it again does not arise. 76. Before we conclude, we would like to thank the learned advocate for the appellants as well as all the learned advocates for the interveners and the learned DR who provided valuable assistance in deciding this issue. 77. In the result, the appeal filed by M/s. Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. is allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 26-2-2010)

1306

2010 (2) TMI 271 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Prashant S. Joshi and Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale Versus Income-tax Officer

Reassessment- The petitioner retired from the partnership consisted of developing of real estate. The petitioner retired from the partnership on March.....

.......... fficer and must be based on a reasonable foundation. The sufficiency of the evidence or material is not open to scrutiny by the court but the existence of the belief is the sine qua non for a valid exercise of power. In the present case, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court it was impossible for any prudent person to form a reasonable belief that the income had escaped assessment. The reasons which have been recorded could never have led a prudent person to form an opinion that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147. In these circum-stances, the petition shall have to be allowed by setting aside the notice under section 148. 21. Writ Petition No. 2287 of 2009 is allowed by quashing and setting aside the notice dated January 19, 2009. Writ Petition No. 59 of 2010 is allowed by quashing and setting aside the notices dated January 23, 2009 and February 9, 2009. 22. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

1307

2010 (2) TMI 690 - ITAT, INDORE

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Ujjain Versus Sushil Kumar Jain

Search and seizure - there can be three situations for making an assessment under section 153A, i.e., firstly, the reassessment of all completed asses.....

.......... er section 153A/142(1) and, in case, no such notice has been issued, then, it shall be construed from the end of month in which return was filed. 23. In the result, the ld. CIT(A) rsquo s order is reversed in respect of both the aspects. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue of addition of Rs. 9,61,793 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C on merits, in view of his decision on legal grounds raised by the assessee, hence, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. Accordingly, we find no necessity to express any opinion on the directions/observations by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order regarding Assessing Officer rsquo s freedom to initiate action under section 147/148, because the same would be taken care of by the decision of the ld. CIT(A) on merits and further in view of the fact that double addition of same income cannot be made. 24. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand rsquo s allowed in terms indicated above.

1308

2010 (2) TMI 934 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE

IN RE: SEMI CONDUCTOR COMPLEX LTD.

Drawback claim - revision application - applicant’s claim for drawback was denied – appellant submitted that observations of the Commissioner (Appeals.....

.......... h cases the Crux of which is that the substantial rights of the Exporter should not be denied - summarily and the departmental officers should act as facilitators and not to create hindrances in completion of requisite compliance of law. 8. emsp In view of above Government is of considered opinion that the applicant has a strong case. The identify of re-exported goods stands established with the goods imported vide relevant Bill of Entry as per examination report of Superintendent (Shed). The applicant cannot be penalized for failure of Superintendent (shed) to put up his report to AC for approval. As such, the condition of Section 74(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962 has to be treated as fulfilled, and drawback claim is admissible to the applicant. The impugned orders are set aside and case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to sanction the drawback claim if otherwise in order. 9. emsp The revision application is thus disposed off in terms of above. 10. emsp So ordered.

1309

2010 (2) TMI 835 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

IN RE: SEMI CONDUCTOR COMPLEX LTD.

Revision application - Duty drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act - re-export of goods - adjudicating authority after examining all the d.....

.......... ported/exported items and none of the judgments analysis/speaks about such a case of integral parts/usable attachment of main imported equipment/goods. 9. emsp In view of above, Government feels that only procedural/technical infirmities which are curable by subsequent permissions deserve to be ignored. It is not to be applied to those conditions/requirement which otherwise leads to specific consequences. The Customs authorities being creatures of Customs Act cannot ignore the statute thereof. These views are inconformity with the views of Hon ble Supreme Court in below mentioned judgments (i) Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone - AIR 1980 S.C. 303 (ii) Eagle Flask Ind. Ltd. v. C.E., Pune - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.) (iii) UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Co. Ltd. - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.). 10. emsp Government, therefore upholds the impugned order-in-appeal and the order-in-original. 11. emsp The revision application is thus rejected being devoid of merits. 12. emsp So ordered.

1310

2010 (2) TMI 323 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

UNIWORTH TEXTILES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

Stay- the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 35F in relation to deposit of the duty as well as non-compliance of the order in terms of.....

.......... the order passed in exercise of powers under the proviso to the said sections and for that purpose need not wait till the appeal gets ripe for final hearing. Moment it is revealed during the pendency of the appeal that the appellant has either failed to deposit the amount in terms of said provision of law or in compliance with order passed under the said provision of law, the appeal could be dismissed after hearing the appellant on the point as to whether there is any genuine and justifiable ground for non-compliance of the said requirement within the time granted and for that purpose the Tribunal need not wait till the appeal gets ripe for final hearing. 35. The point for consideration is accordingly answered in above terms and disposed of as above. All the appeals be fixed for hearing, on the point as to whether there is any genuine and justifiable ground for non-compliance of the said requirement within the time specified under respective stay orders. S.O. 4th March, 2010.

1311

2010 (2) TMI 281 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

UNIWORT TEXTILES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

Failure to pre deposit – failure to comply with the conditions of stay order - whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed for noncompliance of the r.....

.......... omply with the order passed in exercise of powers under the proviso to the said sections and for that purpose need not wait till the appeal gets ripe for final hearing. Moment it is revealed during the pendency of the appeal that the appellant has either failed to deposit the amount in terms of said provision of law or in compliance with order passed under the said provision of law, the appeal could be dismissed after hearing the appellant on the point as to whether there is any genuine and justifiable ground for non-compliance of the said requirement within the time granted and for that purpose the Tribunal need not wait till the appeal gets ripe for final hearing. 35. The point for consideration is accordingly answered in above terms and disposed of as above. All the appeals be fixed for hearing, on the point as to whether there is any genuine and justifiable ground for non of the said requirement within the time specified under respective stay orders. S.O. 4th March, 2010.

1312

2010 (2) TMI 990 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Abhishek Exports

-

.......... nvoked only when the assessee has incurred expenditure for which he has no explanation regarding its source or explanation is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. In the case of the assessee the said amount was not claimed as expenditure in accounts. We find that no addition can be made under section 69 of the Act unless the records of the third parties are properly scrutinised and confronted. We find that to treat the unexplained investment in purchases no addition can be made merely because supplier could not be located or were not produced for examination. We find that it is supported by purchase bills, vouchers, etc. The assessee has supplier rsquo s sales tax number, the amounts were also paid through bank challan. Therefore, we are of the view that no addition can be made. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is justified in his action and our interference is not required. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

1313

2010 (2) TMI 757 - ITAT, Ahmedabad

Reliable Surface Coatings Versus ACIT

Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3). - disallowance the labour and wages charges paid by the assessee. - Upholding the addition of difference .....

.......... d to be allowable while computing the income of the firm, in terms of the proviso to section 28(v), the same will not form part of the income of Smt. S. Mishra and if so assessed is required to be excluded from her income. In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the cross-objections are partly allowed. We summarise the result as under - (1) The assessee s appeal, I. T. A. No. 974/Ahd/2007 for the assessment year 2004-05 is partly allowed. (2) The assessee s appeals, I. T. A. Nos. 4363 and 4364/Ahd/2007 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are partly allowed, whereas the Revenue s appeals, I. T. A. Nos. 4406 and 4407/Ahd/2007 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are dismissed. (3) The Revenue s appeals, I. T. A. Nos. 4403, 4404 and 4405/Ahd/2007 for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 are dismissed and the assessee s cross-objection Nos. 29, 30 and 31/Ahd/2008 are partly allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on February 12, 2010.

1314

2010 (2) TMI 448 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN Versus THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.

Bill of entry - Amendment to bill of entry - Goods had been cleared to home consumption, hence section 149 of Custom Act, 1962 cannot be applied unles.....

.......... lso be made under Section 154 of the Act. According to the respondents, this is purely a clerical and arithmetic error. If so, they could not have made the application-under Section 149. 10. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal is devoid of reason. The impugned order does not indicate why in the present facts and circumstances, the officer ought to have exercised his discretion under Section 149. The above substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The appeals are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they may be permitted to apply to the authorities concerned for rectification of clerical and arithmetic error under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. No leave is necessary for that, if they are entitled in law to file such an application. If the respondents file such an application, it shall be dealt by the appellant in accordance with law.

1315

2010 (2) TMI 892 - ITAT, Agra

Baijnath Agarwal Versus ACIT

Disallowance of telephone and car expenses - AO disallowed 1/4th of the total expenses - CIT(A) has reduced this disallowance to 1/6th - Held that:- T.....

.......... by the assessee is chargeable to tax as L.T.C.G. and cannot be treated as income from any undisclosed sources. Thus, the question referred to me is decided in favour of the assessee. 19. The matter will now go before the Regular Bench for deciding the appeal in accordance with the majority opinion. ORDER P.K. Bansal, Accountant Member - 1. In this case the difference arose between the Members of the Division Bench hearing this appeal. Therefore, the matter was referred to the opinion of the ld. Third Member. The ld. Third Member has agreed with the view taken by the ld. Judicial Member that the CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer treating the income under the head Long Term Capital Gain as sham and bogus and taxfng the same under the head income from other sources . Therefore, in view of the majority decision, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed. 2. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed in part.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

Updates Knowledge Sharing Subscription Communication Newsletters More Options


Quick Links: | Acts and Rules | Notifications | Circulars | Schedules | Tariff | Forms | Case Laws | Manuals |
| Home | About us | Contact us | Feed Back | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Members | |
Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.