|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1001 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1000 - SC ORDER
Valuation - Value of Software include ability in the value of software - The allegation of the Revenue is that the value of the impugned goods have been split up into hardware and software portion with an intention to evade payment of Customs duty - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
-
2012 (12) TMI 999 - SC ORDER
Restoration of appeal - Waiver of pre deposit - Appeal dismissed for non compliance with pre deposit order - Application for withdrawal of appeal.
-
2012 (12) TMI 998 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 997 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... d period of limitation was not invokable. We have also heard the learned Superintendent (AR) who submits that the appellant filed Returns only for the period from April 2005 to September 2007 and that they filed Returns for the said period only in October 2007. These facts are not in dispute. 2. We have also considered the plea of financial hardships raised by the appellant. Considering the factual matrix, we are of the view that the appellant should deposit an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only), over and above the payments aforesaid, within four weeks and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar on 7.2.2013. The Deputy Registrar to report to the Bench on 14.2.2013. Subject to due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellant and the balance amount of service tax and interest thereon. 3. The miscellaneous application along with the appeal will be heard in due course. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 996 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver and stay of penalty - consideration received in the form of land by the assessee from the service recipients (land owners) - whether twin houses and villas are also to be considered as a residential complex in view of the expression building or buildings used in the definition of residential complex?
Held that: - the appellant, indeed, paid service tax in respect of 62 houses (22 villas and 40 twin houses) constructed in the same premises. Those villas and twin houses were also constructed and given to individual buyers. However, the aforesaid issue is relevant to the said houses also. As the appellant paid service tax in respect of those constructions, we shudder to think how they can resist the present demand on merits - we are inclined to ask for a reasonable amount of predeposit from the appellants - there shall be waiver and stay in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellants on compliance - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants.
-
2012 (12) TMI 995 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... gether with the interest, if any, payable thereon be or (a) the amount of loan or deposit payable therein or (b) the aggregate of loan or deposit held by person with the branch of the banking company or co-operative bank or company or co-operative society or firm or other persons either jointly with any other person on the date of such repayment together with loan or deposit is of ₹ 20,000/- or more. In the case in hand, the assessee has not repaid the loan on the contrary, the farmers had repaid the loan to the assessee. Therefore, the AO has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity into the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and same is hereby upheld. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 13. In combined result, both the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (12) TMI 994 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sary information. So, the same was pasted at the back portion of Form no. 38. On physical verification, no discrepancy was found. The mistake is inadvertent and merely a technical. There was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee to make any concealment, as observed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kamla Ganpati vs. Controller of Estate Duty, 253 ITR 692 SC. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case specially when neither there was any loss to the revenue nor any information was concealed, then there was no occasion for levy of the penalty. In the absence of mens rea, there was no justification for levy of penalty as per the ratio laid down in the case of Price Water-house Coopers vs. CIT; JT 2012 (1) SC 523. In view of above, the revision filed by the department is dismissed by upholding the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the revision is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT
Whether respondent No.1 should be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner in an application filed by a trust for sanction to sell off some land belonging to it?
-
2012 (12) TMI 992 - ITAT JODHPUR
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- This is not a fit case for levying penalty as in this case neither the assessee has concealed the particulars of income nor has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This is simply a case of bonafide mistake which has occurred due to change of law applicable in this year. The assessee had been claiming and was being allowed similar claims of deductions in earlier Assessment Years also. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts of this case vis-a-vis the legal position narrated above, we are of the considered opinion that when a wrong claim is made under some bonafide mistake, that cannot be a ground for imposition for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has been making similar claim and the same were being allowed in earlier assessment years. Due to sudden change in law, this claim was not allowed and the assessee also corrected its mistake by fling a revised return, it is not a case of willful wrong claim. Therefore, we do not find any mistake in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the deletion of impugned penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 991 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution by ITAT - Held that:- In the instant case, as could be noted from the order impugned, that the Tribunal has chosen to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution. It also noted that RPAD was sent and the same had returned with the remark of the postal department as none having claimed the same. Instead of deciding the matter on merits, it chose to dismiss the same for want of prosecution and this order in our opinion is contrary to the provision of law.
When the Supreme Court decided the case of S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court), no amendment in Rule in the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules was made as yet. Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal without adverting to the merits. Even on the day on which the hearing is adjourned, the appellant chose not to appear in person or through an authorised representative. It is incumbent upon the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent and afterwards if the appellant appears and satisfy the Tribunal, sufficient cause for its non-appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal can set aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal. Thus the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal which shall decide the same afresh on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 990 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se,. New Delhi. v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), noncompliance will not entail benefits of the said Notification. According to us, in order to be entitled to the benefits under the sad Notification, it was a mandatory requirement of the appellant to exercise its option in writing before effecting the first clearance, in order to enable the departmental authorities to ascertain, whether, in fact, appellant is eligible to the benefits under the said Notification. That having not been done, we are of the view that there was nothing wrong on the part of the department in not allowing the appellant the benefits of the said Notification. 2. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
-
2012 (12) TMI 989 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as already been made. 3. Issue notice returnable on 5122012. Respondents are prevented from making any further coercive recovery pursuant to the order of the Commissioner dated 2472012 from the petitioners. Direct Service is permitted.” The above order is self-speaking. The case, in our opinion, is such where the recovery pursuant to the appellate order of the Commissioner should not be permitted at least till the revisions petitions are decided by the Government. Ordered accordingly. In view of the facts emerging from the record, it would not be necessary to call for a detailed reply. Particularly when we are limiting the interim protection till the revision petition is decided, no further reasons are required to be given. It is, however, clarified that it would be open for the revisional authority to expedite the final disposal of the revision petitions for which the petitioners shall cooperate. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 988 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... me are set aside. 8. With regard to the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, wherein penalty on the person can be imposed for the violation i.e. If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, sings or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act. By using the IEC of some other person is not an offence under the Customs Act is held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hamid Fahim Ansari (supra). Therefore, as the appellant has not violated any provisions of the Customs Act, therefore penalties on the appellants under Section 114AA of the Customs Act is not imposable. Hence the penalties under Section 114AA of the Customs Act are also set aside. 9. In the result, impugned order qua appellants is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 987 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erial supplier to deliver at the premises of job worker. The job worker had sent the final products after payment of duty, to the lessor unit. The job worker however misplaced duplicate copies of invoices and sent the same to the lessor unit after tracing out the same. Therefore the lessor unit has given them to the respondents to avail credit. Accordingly, the respondents had taken credit. Even though the respondents have taken credit after 1-4-2003 on the invoices relating to the lessor unit, the same should be treated as lying as unutilized credit in account of lessor unit as per Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002; and that the non-stipulation of this quantum discovered later was only a technical lapse which would not entitle them to avail the said credit. The Tribunal agreed that in fact there was a Cenvat credit to the account of the respondent-assessee occasioned by the transfer of the unit. No question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 986 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1091 2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 (Tri. - Del.) , which totally deals with duty liability of processed fabrics and does not appear to be applicable to the facts of the case? 2. Both sides agree that the issue raised in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is covered by a decision reported in Commissioner of C. Ex., Ponndicherry v. Sunco Rubbers Ltd., reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T 27 (Madras) wherein the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue. 3. In the circumstances, following the above-said decision, the questions of law are answered against the Revenue C.M.A. No. 3557 of 2005 is rejected. No costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 985 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay in filling Appeal Order not communicated in person Petitioner contended that he had not received order-in-original for long time and therefore had not filed appeal earlier Tribunal by impugned order rejected appeal holding that signature contained in acknowledgment slip matched with admitted signature of petitioner Held that:- true that Department relies on acknowledgment however, it was not clear why order was communicated in person as opposed to normal practice of serving orders through RPAD Tribunal was not quite justified in recording that signature in acknowledgment slip was same as those of admitted signatures of partner In larger interest of justice, proceedings remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), who shall hear appeal on merits Impugned orders of Tribunal quashed Decided in favour of Assesse.
-
2012 (12) TMI 984 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Set off of interest income from share application money against public issue expenses - Tribunal allowed claim - Held that:- Tribunal had in the impugned judgment allowed the benefit of set off of interest income from share application money as followed the decision of this Court in Panama Petrochem Ltd. case [2011 (7) TMI 1110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein held the assessee was statutorily required to keep share application money in the separate account till the allotment of shares was completed. Interest earned on such separately kept amount was adjusted towards expenditure for raising share capital. We are therefore, of the opinion that interest earned was inextricably linked with requirement of company to raise share capital and was thus adjustable towards the expenditures involved for the share issue - Decided against revenue
Disallowance u/s.35D - Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh consideration - Held that:- Revenue rightly pointed out that the Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh consideration erroneously relying on a remand order passed in Mandvi Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd. case [2005 (12) TMI 554 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] for the assessment year 2001-02. She pointed out that such issue had reached the Tribunal after a round of remand and full consideration by the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal was, therefore, required to examine the issue on merits and give its decision. Such issue, therefore, shall have to be placed back before the Tribunal for consideration on merits.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Exchange rate fluctuation, Excise credit, Kasar/vatav and Excess provision written back of bonus - Held that:- Tribunal has granted certain benefits as claimed by the assessee for deduction under section 80IA of the Act without full discussion. Tribunal has not given any specific verdict on some of the issues raised at the hands of the assessee in rectification application. We are sure, the Tribunal will consider the same and take steps on such application irrespective of the order in this appeal.
Disallowance out of shares and debentures issue expenses - Held that:- Tribunal has remanded the issue once gain relying on a remand in the case of this very assessee for another year. Here also, the issue had been discussed and decided by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) on merits. The Tribunal, therefore, would have to judge issue on merits rather than remanding the issue all over again.
-
2012 (12) TMI 983 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Product Containing Lactic Acid Product prohibited or not Respondents sealed and seized petitioner's food products and raw material on ground that they contain lactic acid Whether use of lactic acid in petitioner's products were permitted Held that:- petitioner does not deny fact that its products contain lactic acid (SRP 9/28 ASWPL28980.12) whereas respondents contend that it was not permissible ingredient Provisions of Regulation 3.1.1(1) permits use of food additives in food products as specified in "regulations and in Appendix A" Use of word "and" in regulation does not indicate that food additive must be stated to be permissible both in regulations and Appendix A Lactic acid is food additive and is used in food as acidulant, buffering agent, neutralising agent No dispute that petitioner uses lactic acid as buffering agent Provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and revision published by Bureau of Indian Standards were additional factors which supported conclusion of Petitioner Decided in favour of Petitioner.
-
2012 (12) TMI 982 - SUPREME COURT
Search and seizure of contrabands without warrant Trial Court convicted accused of offence punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985 and awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine Impugned order of conviction was challenged for non-compliance of section 42 Held that:- PW1 deposed that upon receiving secret information, information was neither reduced to writing nor communicated to senior officer as required under Section 42 No effort was made by PW1 to reduce information into writing and inform his higher authorities instantaneously or even after reasonable delay On contrary PW 1 had more than sufficient time to comply with provisions No documentary evidence available to show what Investigating Officer was doing for two hours and what prevented him from complying with provisions of Act Impugned judgment of conviction set aside Appeal allowed Decided in favour of Appellant.
............
|
