New User / Register | Annual Subscription | SMS Option | 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 6813 Records

   

1301

2010 (4) TMI 98 - DELHI HIGH COURT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S LALSONS ENTERPRISES

Power of revision – section 263 – disallowance of interest on the ground of diversion of funds / loan – addition on account of excess / shortage of s.....

1302

2010 (4) TMI 566 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

Totem Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad

Work Contract Service - The assessee was sub-contracted work of construction of raw water reservoir and its lining package by S which was awarded to.....

1303

2010 (4) TMI 317 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus VIDYUT METALLIC LTD.

Refund- unjust enrichment- The assessee was paying duty on their final products on the basis of provisional assessments. In the show-cause notice, it.....

1304

2010 (4) TMI 612 - HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI

Chemical Mazdoor Sabha Versus Industrial Development Bank of India

Winding up - Overriding preferential payments - Held that:- Coming to the facts of the present case, the assets had been mortgaged in favour of respon.....

1305

2010 (4) TMI 391 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

COMMR. OF C. EX., PUNE-III Versus SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA AUCTIONEERS

Refund- Erroneous payment- the respondent obtained the service Tax registration and paid the Service Tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Se.....

1306

2010 (4) TMI 2 - ITAT DELHI-I

Joint Commissioner Of Income-tax. Versus Thirani Chemicals Limited.

Allowability

.......... th law by way of a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 are as such disposed. Ground No. 5 is consequential. Ground Nos. 6 to 8 are general requiring no adjudication. AO was directed to examine the claims under ss. 80HH and 80-I and decide the issue in accordance with law by way of speaking order. In our view, assessee s claim has been examined by AO and CIT(A) in accordance with law by a speaking order, therefore, they cannot be held to have travelled beyond the directions of Tribunal these grounds raised by assessee are, therefore, dismissed. (iii) Apropos ground Nos. 6 and 7 regarding interest are consequential in nature. (iv) Ground Nos. 8 to 10 are general in nature requiring no adjudication. Hence, the assessee s appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98 is dismissed on above terms. 26. In the result, the Revenue s appeal for asst. yr. 1992-93 is allowed and assessee s appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98 is dismissed on the above terms.

1307

2010 (4) TMI 878 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE

IN RE: EVERSHINE POLYPLAST PVT. LTD.

Rebate claims - rebate claim for the duty so paid were sanctioned by the Lower Authority in full and paid in cash – tariff rate of the goods exported .....

1308

2010 (4) TMI 210 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central - III, Versus Apar Industries Limited

Adjustment of credit of MAT (Minimum Alternate Tax) – charge of interest u/s 234B – interest u/s 244A on refundable taxes – Held that: Since the tax d.....

1309

2010 (4) TMI 151 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus APAR INDUSTRIES LTD.

Advance tax- whether minimum alternative tax (MAT) credit, to which the assessee is undisputedly entitled, must be given before computing interest pay.....

1310

2010 (4) TMI 956 - CESTAT BANGALORE

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus ITC LTD.

-

.......... date. This has been held to be sufficient to replace the presumption raised under Section 12B of the Act. Therefore, we find that no question of law warranting admission of this matter would arise and accordingly the application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. rdquo 11. Accordingly, respectfully following the ratio as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of P and H and no contrary decision being brought to our notice, in view of the above reasonings, we hold that the impugned order that sets aside the refund claim filed by the respondent is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The amount of refund after appropriation against the dues from the respondent is correct and needs to be upheld. 12. Since we have disposed of the appeal on point as indicated herein above, we have not recorded any detailed findings on other points urged by both sides. 13. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected and impugned order is upheld. (Pronounced in court on 5-4-2010)

1311

2010 (4) TMI 876 - ITAT MUMBAI

Boston Scientific International BV India Versus Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-3(2), Mumbai

Business expenditure - Year in which deductible, Method of accounting - Valuation of stock

.......... f the view that in view of our finding recorded in para 22 of this order the assessee is not liable to interest under sections 234B and 234C and accordingly the same is deleted. The ground taken by the revenue is therefore rejected. ITA No. 5952/M/2006 (assessment year 2002-04) (Revenue Appeal) 45. Ground No. 1 and 2 are against levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. 46. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record we find that the Assessing Officer while processing the return has charged interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the same. In view of out finding recorded in para 22 of this order we are of the view that the assessee is not liable to charge interest under sections 234B and 234C and accordingly the same is deleted. The grounds taken by the revenue are therefore rejected. 47. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeals are partly allowed and revenue rsquo s appeals stand dismissed.

1312

2010 (4) TMI 680 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

ALLADI DRILLING EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., HYDERABAD

Clandestine manufacture and removal - Revenue claimed that Supervisor has stated that miscellaneous outward register was maintained by security and it.....

1313

2010 (4) TMI 655 - Calcutta High Court

Kusum Goyal Versus Income-tax Officer

Transfer of case - intra city transfer, notice is required to be served and separate orders of transfer are required - petition allowed

.......... nce it has been held in this judgment that it is imperative on part of the respondents to issue order under section 127(3), the letters/notices under challenge are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated6th January, 2010regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G. A. No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. 11. No order as to costs. Later 12. After the judgment and order is delivered Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue prays for stay. Prayer is considered and is allowed. Let there be stay tillApril 30, 2010. 13. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this order on the usual undertakings. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.

1314

2010 (4) TMI 206 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 1(1), 2. Union of India

Reopening of an completed assessment – income escaping assessment – reason to belief - assessment was reopened on four grounds – (i) adjustment of los.....

1315

2010 (3) TMI 939 - ITAT PATNA

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Dr. Kamla Prasad Singh

-

.......... case of Baldev Singh and since the Revenue has not brought any information on record as to what happened in the case of Baldev Singh, we, in the interest of justice, are of the opinion that the addition on the basis of that very document, which has to be considered in the hands of Shri Baldev Singh, cannot be sustained in the assessee s case. Consequently to meet the ends of substantial justice, we set aside this addition and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions that question of computing any undisclosed income on the basis of document placed at page 11 of the Revenue s paper book (supra) may be decided afresh in accordance with law after considering the action having been taken in the case of Baldev Singh and allowing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Since the assessee has not raised any other issue, the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on March 31, 2010.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

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.