New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Service tax applicability on Directors remuneration valuation of goods and ED on scrap Two companies in different states Import of Service i.e. Payment to architect of Dubai for construction of House in India Service Tax Payment on GTA Second hand equipment with EPCG Licence Necessity of RD 23 D Export goods from other manufacturer Payment Made in Wrong Code TDS Payment done 94C instead of 94J
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 6628 Records

   

1301

2009 (8) TMI 713 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Probir Kumar Misra Versus Ramani Ramaswamy

Prospectus - Civil liability for mis-statements in, Oppression and mismanagement,

..... o the miscellaneous petitions to implead Subarnarekha Port Private Limited, viz., M.P. No. 10 of 2009 in C.A. No. 11 of 2009, M.P. No. 5 of 2009 in C.A. No. 12 of 2009, M.P. No. 10 of 2009 in C.A. No. 13 of 2009, M.P. No. 6 of 2009 in C.A. No. 14 of 2009, and M.P. No. 5 of 2009 in C.A. No. 15 of 2009, since as per the discussions, Subarnarekha Port Private Limited is found to be controlled by the petitioners themselves who are before this Court and the documents have also been produced and discussed in detail, it is not necessary to implead Subarnarekha Port Private Limited as a party and, hence, these miscellaneous petitions are closed as unnecessary. All other miscellaneous petitions seeking injunction and direction, viz., M.P. Nos. 5 to 9 in C.A. No. 11 of 2009, M.P. Nos. 7 to 11 in C.A. No. 12 of 2009, M.P. Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9 in C.A. No. 13 of 2009, M.P. Nos. 4, 5 and 8 to 10 in C.A. No. 14 of 2009, and M.P. Nos. 6 and 8 to 11 of 2009 in C.A. No. 15 of 2009, are closed.

1302

2009 (8) TMI 127 - ITAT DELHI-B

Charchit Agarwal. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Search And Seizure

..... Authorised Representative of the assessee but do not find any decision which is direct on the issue before us. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative of the assessee could not cite a single case law according to which assessee could have filed returns for earlier years revising the valuation of closing stock for which assessments had already been finalized. Therefore, in view of above discussions in search proceedings under s. 153A, which are for the benefit of the Revenue, assessee is not permitted to value the closing stock for concluded years at average cost price. Accordingly, the AO as well as CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the change in method of valuation adopted by the assessee for all these years. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A), confirming the additions made by the AO due to change of method of valuation. 14. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed.

1303

2009 (8) TMI 959 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PUNE-II

IN RE : SUHAS TRANSPORTS

..... ally would get reduced to that extent. And accordingly, the equal penalty will also get reduced. 5. Another plea that when penalty under Section 78 is imposed, penalty under Section 76 is not imposable, is acceptable. In the instant case, lsquo mens-rea rsquo has been proved and accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 78 is sustainable. But penalty under Section 76 is imposable when there is late payment which is not on the account of suppression of facts etc. In other words, simultaneous penalty under both the Sections is not sustainable since they deal with different situations. The above view has been held in the following cases i.e. Financiers v. CCE - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 7 (T), CCE v. Silver Oak Garden Resort - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 481 (T) and CCE, Ludhiana v. Pannu Property Dealers - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 687 (T-Del). 6. In view of the above facts of the matter, I reject the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ratnagiri Division.

1304

2009 (8) TMI 462 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE Versus AGROTECH FOODS LTD.

Refund-Unjust enrichment- The Revenue is in appeal, questioning the order of the CESTAT, whereunder the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and remanded the matter to the original authority to reconsider the refund and gran ......

1305

2009 (8) TMI 378 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Versus Chowgule Bros. (P.) Ltd.

Cargo handling services- Board’s Circular B-43/1/1997-BRU, dated 06.06.1997- The assessee was custom house agent. The original authority held that the assessee was also engaged in activity of cargo handling in the port premises which was appropriatel ......

1306

2009 (8) TMI 220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Disallowance of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of total income - The assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. – Assessee made investment in shares using its own funds - During assessment, the Assessing O ......

1307

2009 (8) TMI 799 - ITAT MADRAS-D

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Tvs Finance And Services Limited.

Mandatory Penalty - Disallowance u/s 35D - Concealment of income - 100% depreciation on leased assets - genuineness of the transaction - Held that: - It is evident as to how assessee is changing its stand from time to time. The assessee could take a ......

1308

2009 (8) TMI 960 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), GOA

IN RE : CANCIO EP. MASCARENHAS

..... mission itself is Rs. 20 lakhs and therefore, he is not a Small Scale provider in the eyes of law. Further, as per Explanation (B) to the said notification, ldquo aggregate value not exceeding 8 lakhs rupees rdquo - means the sum total of first consecutive payment received during a financial year towards the gross amount as prescribed under section 67 of the said Finance Act, charged by the service provider towards taxable service till the aggregate amount of such payment is equal to 8 lakhs rupees...... rdquo As already held as the first amount received by the appellant is more than Rs. 8 lakhs, he is not at all eligible to deduct Rs. 8 lakhs from his commission of Rs. 20 lakhs. He has to discharge duty on the total commission only. On this ground also, the appellant is not entitled to get the refund. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I reject the appeal by upholding the impugned OIO passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Panaji.

1309

2009 (8) TMI 236 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

MUTHOOT FINCORP LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAFATNAM

BAS - Money transfer service - Appellants appointed as a sub-agent for undertaking money transfer – demand of Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary service. The allegation in the show cause notice was that the said activity is nothing ......

1310

2009 (8) TMI 834 - Gujarat High Court

Mahavir Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Versus Income-tax Settlement Commission

Interest under section 220(2) read with section 245D(6A) of the Act - submissions of appellant that the order of the Settlement Commission is very vague on the issue of charging of interest as it is not clarified as to from which period the interest ......

1311

2009 (8) TMI 767 - Rajasthan High Court

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Anil Hastkala (P.) Ltd.

Abatement of application of settlement - amendment vide Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007 - applications were filed before 1.6.2007 - the instant matters pertain to applications being filed before the Settlement Commission on or before June 1, 2007 a ......

1312

2009 (8) TMI 62 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

M/s Korea Plant Service & Engineering Co. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur -II

Cenvat Credit – Input Service - The appellant take Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the goods and input services, which is utilized towards payment of service tax on their output service. The Department, however, while treating their entire services ......

1313

2009 (8) TMI 150 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

KVR. CONSTRUCTIONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

Refund of deposits - In impugned order it was held that the petitioner was not liable to pay service tax in respect of the civil structures constructed for and on behalf of M/s. Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust put to use for education, religious, ch ......

1314

2009 (8) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

PV. Chandran Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Revenue Receipt Versus Capital Receipt – Taxability u/s 28 or 56 - the appellant ventured to sell the shares of the other promoters of the Company assuring the agreed price and undertaking to compensate them in case the shares are sold less than the ......

1315

2009 (8) TMI 695 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

R. Venkatakrishnan Versus Central Bureau of Investigation

Whether the ‘transfer’ was illegal within the meaning of section 43 of the Indian Penal Code in the light of the provisions of section 14 of the NHB Act? Held that:- As per the law laid down it is therefore to hold that the accused Nos. A1 ......

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options


Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.