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

Recent Discussionss:

section 185 of companies act 2013 Export to SEZ under claim of rebate Collection of Interest on delay payment from customer Taken Cenvat 50% Rg 23 d register required to be maintained Reversal of Cenvat credit CENVAT CREDIT TO DEVELOPERS Procedure to sent back the rejected imported material Applicability of State VAT or CST valuation job work
Search in Case Laws

Refine Search / Filter

Case Laws
Search as Search in: -

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

TMI Citation
or TMI - ID

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

Search Results

Showing 1301 to 1315 of 6726 Records



2010 (1) TMI 951 - ITAT AGRA

Shiva Automobiles Versus Income-tax Officer. Ward-1A. Aligarh

Business disallowance - Interest, salary, etc., paid by firm to partner, Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue

.......... essing Officer has not carried out necessary enquiry which ought to have been carried out for allowing deduction to the assessee under section 40(b) of the Act. Therefore, in my opinion, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I agree with the view taken by the ld. A.M. 28. 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. - 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 of the ld. Accountant Member. Therefore, in view of the majority decision, the assessee rsquo s appeal is partly allowed. 2. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed in part.


2010 (1) TMI 899 - ITAT, Mumbai

Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus ITO

Bogus purchase / unverifiable purchase - addition on the basis of retracted statement - held that:- there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee .....

.......... the Revenue is allowed. I.T.A. No. 6220/Mum/08 (A.Y. 2005-06) 13. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,35,000/- on account of alleged bogus purchase from M/s. Paramount Trading Corporation. 13.1 After hearing both the sides, we find this ground is identical to the grounds of appeal No. 5 in I.T.A. No. 6219/Mum/2008. We have already decided the issue and the matter has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Following the same ratio this ground by the assessee is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the directions given therein. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.


2010 (1) TMI 1041 - CESTAT NEW DELHI



.......... Plywood Industries reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T. 854 and in CCE, Vapi v. Modison Ltd. reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 521 (Tribunal-LB). The last judgment is of a Larger Bench, while the judgment in the case of Bhusan Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-IV (supra) is of a Single Bench. I, therefore, set aside and the order of the Asstt. Commissioner regarding confiscation of MS angles in restored. However the CCE (Appeals) order in respect of MS bars and MS flats is upheld. Looking to the fact that this is only a case of non-recording of production in the RG-1 register and as such there is no evidence that the Respondents were indulging duty evasion by clandestine clearances, the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs. 3,00,000/- and penalty is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. The Asstt. Commissioner rsquo s order stands restored with the above modification. The Revenue rsquo s appeal and the Cross-Objection stands disposed of as above. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court).


2010 (1) TMI 1095 - SUPREME COURT

State of Uttaranchal Versus Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others

Whether L. P. Nathani could hold the august Office of the Advocate General of Uttarakhand in view of Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitu.....

.......... ourt should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. 199. Copies of this judgment be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts within one week. 200. These appeals are listed on 03.05.2010 to ensure compliance of our order.




Reward to informer - The short point involved in this petition is that despite certain information furnished by the petitioner, on the basis of which .....

.......... licy, in force, as on the date of consideration and actually grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indication contained in this regard in the scheme itself. It was also held that the question of any vested rights accrued being protected from any subsequent amendments would not arise in such a case and therefore, the guidelines, as are in force on the dated of consideration, will really be applicable and relevant. 8. In light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the petitioner has not pointed out any guidelines, policy, circular or notification in this regard. On the contrary the petitioner has thrown the burden on this Court by making the prayer for a direction to the Respondent authorities. This is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance and merit in the present petition. The petitions therefore fails. Rule discharged without any order as to costs.


2010 (1) TMI 130 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

CST., Delhi Versus M/s Avery India Ltd.

Consulting Engineering Service import of service demand confirmed by the original authority set aside by the commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT a.....

.......... ed that provisions contained in Section 11D of the Central Excise Act have not been made applicable to service tax. Therefore, if any amounts are collected erroneously as representing service tax, which is not in force, there is no bar to the return of such amounts. The rejection of refund application was, therefore, not correct . 6.3 The grounds of appeal do not disclose any reason for disagreeing with the factual findings by the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, no averments have been made as to why the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Heaxcom (I) Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present case as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. In view of the above, no valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the appeal of the Department is rejected. Cross-Objection by the respondents which is basically in support of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is also disposed of. (M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical)



Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus Sri Ravindran Prabhakar Adyar, Chennai

Jurisdiction to reopen assessment failure to disclose material facts held that - under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), .....

.......... nly recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise. 8. In view of the above, the orders of the Tribunal setting aside the orders of reassessment passed by the assessing officer only on the ground that there was a change of opinion cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the orders questioned in all these appeals are set aside. As there was no consideration on merit and as already pointed out, all the appeals are disposed of only on the ground of change of opinion, we will have to necessarily remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the merits of the case and without reference to the issue of change of opinion. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No costs.


2010 (1) TMI 963 - ITAT DELHI

Jagdhamba Industries Versus Income-tax Officer


.......... ot specifically addressed the grievance of the assessee regarding its latest letter sought to be submitted to the Assessing Officer which was refused to be taken on record. In any case, considering the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that it will be fair, if the assessment is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and thereafter reframe the assessment in accordance with law. We direct accordingly. As we have restored this assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer, we do not express any opinion on the merits of the additions raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal as the same will be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer as per the directions given by us in the above part of this order. With these observations the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on January 8, 2010.


2010 (1) TMI 722 - Punjab and Haryana High Court

Brijmohan Lal Trust No. 1 Versus Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Assessment of trust - assessment u/s 21(1) or u/s 21(4) of the wealth tax act - Shares of the beneficiaries of the trust - shares are held by trustees.....

.......... n to the trustees upto the payment of the primary beneficiaries, their shares were indeterminate and the assessment was correctly made under section 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. In the instant case, as held by the Hon ble Kerala High Court in Dr.David Joseph s case (supra) the position had to be seen on the relevant valuation date taking into consideration the final termination of the Trust where the shares of the secondary beneficiaries were determinate. Therefore, in this case, assessment is to be made under 21(1) of the Wealth Tax Act and not under 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, because mere vesting of discretion would not make the position indeterminate. Since, in the present case, the shares of the beneficiaries of the trust were known and determinate, hence the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Wealth Tax Act would be attracted and not Section 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. Consequently, the questions raised are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the revenue.





.......... ence of opinion as regards the order in original passed by Commissioner which is before the third Member is pointed out by the learned advocate. Shows that two views are possible as regards jurisdiction of Commissioner. As rightly pointed out by him that if third member agrees with the learned Member Judicial, order passed by Commissioner may be treated as having been passed without jurisdiction. Of course, after all the details gone into, it can be ascertained whether the whole order and all the show cause notices are without jurisdiction or not. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is possible that the impugned order may also be without jurisdiction in respect of the whole demand. In view of the above, we agree with the learned advocate that the case is arguable and therefore stay petition is allowed. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of amount of duty and penalty is waived and stay is granted during the pendency of appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)


2010 (1) TMI 129 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

CCE., Lucknow Versus M/s Awadh Transformers Pvt. Ltd.

Penalty for late payment of service tax - GTA service - officers visited the premises of respondents on 3.4.07 and noticed that the respondents have b.....

.......... at it is not a case for imposition of penalties both under Sections 76 and 78. Considering the nature of dispute, considering the quantum of the service tax involved and considering the fact that the respondents promptly paid service tax along with interest, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties under 78 to the extent of 25 of service tax involved and also set aside the penalties under Section 76 and the decision by him cannot be held unreasonable. Unlike in the case of Central Excise Act, the penalties imposable under Section 76, Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 are not mandatory in as much as the same are to be moderated in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, wherever necessary. 6. In view of the above, I hold that there is no merit in the appeals by the Department. 7. Therefore, the appeals by the Department are rejected. Cross-Objections which are merely in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are also disposed of. (M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical)


2010 (1) TMI 746 - Karnataka High Court

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus United Breweries Ltd. and Anr.

Accrual of Interest on loans - Real income or not - Accrual of income u/s 5 - Prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1) - held that:- If the assessee had not .....

.......... y the first appellate authority, by way of claiming the lent amount as an irrecoverable debt and not by any other method. It is not open to the IT authorities, who are statutory functionaries under the Act to accept any theory propounded by the assessee which is not supported by statutory provision. The statutory provision is very clear and mandates the IT authorities to act in particular way. 21. We find the Tribunal has committed a grave error in law in simply allowing the appeal of the assessee and reversing the findings of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority on the aspect of the interest amount being taken as income on accrual basis. 22. Accordingly, we allow this appeal. The substantial questions framed are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The order passed by the assessing authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority is restored. Parties to bear their respective costs.


2010 (1) TMI 54 - ITAT DELHI-B

Dlf Universal Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax.


.......... 3 75 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 11,62,72,364 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 13,05,00,000 Yes, Non-interest bearing 1 1 1 3,26,470 Yes, Non-interest bearing 1 1 17,11,981 Yes, Non-interest bearing 1 1 13,98,962 Yes, Non-interest bearing 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 13,39,37,413 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 13,80,00,000 Yes, Non-interest bearing 1 1 1 45,02,405 Yes, Non-interest bearing 1 1 1 1 1 35,96,284 Yes, Non-interest bearing 1 1 1 1 1 1 55,42,713 75 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 15,16,41,402 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 7,25,00,000 Yes, Non-interest bearing 80 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 7,25,00,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------


2009 (12) TMI 280 - CESTAT, CHENNAI


Smuggling- Penalty- In this case a Show cause Notice had been issued to the Appellant for smuggling the gold and jewellary from Singapore to India by.....

.......... ideration has been stated only to be Rs.2,000/- in the statements recorded from them as well as from the associates of Shri Ramesh separately, the penalty of Rs.50,000/- each imposed on them appears to be harsh on them. At the same time, the amount cannot be reduced to such an extent as to encourage them to commit the same wrongs repeatedly and it should also be deterrent enough to prevent other passengers to act as carriers. Hence, keeping both considerations in view, we reduce the penalty in respect of the 11 passenger-appellants from Rs.50,000/- each to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each. 20. In the result, the appeals filed by S/Shri G.V. Ramesh, Lakshmi Narayan, Kathiresan, Janakiraman and Parthiban are dismissed. The other 11 appeals filed by the 11 passenger-appellants are partly allowed by reducing the penalties imposed on them from Rs.50,000/- each to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each as indicated above. (Pronounced in the open court on 24-12-2009)


2009 (12) TMI 883 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Southern Petro Oils (P) Ltd. and others Versus Commercial Tax Officer and others


.......... ot be scrutinized by the court. In fact, such matters came to be admitted only because the challenge to the constitutionality of legislative entry into the Schedule is pending before the Tribunal or before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal or before this court. In some cases, there was also interim orders. Even those cases were admitted without scrutinizing the individual claims of the dealers. Now that the legal question is squarely answered against the dealers and the contention of the State has been upheld, there is no scope for entertaining those writ petitions and the petitioners are relegated to the place where it emanated or their writ petitions have to be dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge these orders before the appropriate statutory forums under the TNGST Act. In the light of the above, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.



what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore 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
© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.