Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2001 2001 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 441 to 445 of 445 Records

• 2001 (12) TMI 5
  

  Capital gains - assessee submitted that there is another issue pertaining to substitution of indexed cost of acquisition and interest under section 234B which was the subject matter of the revision petition dated January 18, 2000, and the same has also been dismissed by the aforesaid common order.- On a perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 dated March 30, 2001, it is seen that although the revision petition dated September 28, 2000, has been filed as supplementary petition to the original revision petition dated January 18, 2000, for all practical purposes, both the revision petitions have been considered to be two separate and distinct petitions and even the prescribed fee of Rs. 25 has been paid separately. Merely because, two revision petitions have been disposed of by a common order, it is not open to the petitioner to file a combined petition and pay court fees payable on one petition only.

  ---

• 2001 (12) TMI 4
  

  Computing the deduction under section 80HHC - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, will not the amounts of Rs. 10,045 and Rs. 1,17,483 received by the assessee towards quality claim and raw nut claim form part of the total turnover of the assessee and the Tribunal is right in law in excluding the two amounts from the total turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act? - 2. Whether, in view of Explanation (ba) to section 80HHC and clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28, will not turnover take into account all other receipts other than the excluded items of receipts?" - The questions are answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee, and the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

  ---

• 2001 (12) TMI 3
  

  Notification exempting finished goods if made from materials “on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid” – The meaning of the word “appropriate” defined. Exempted or Nil rate does not mean appropriate rate of duty.

  ---

• 2001 (12) TMI 2
  

  Service Tax – (1) Refund (2) Limitation (3) Jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he claim was filed beyond the time limit as stipulated in Section 11B. Therefore, that part of the order cannot be faulted. The claim which was within the time limit was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The law on this subject is that if the amount had been passed on, a refund would only benefit the claiment in an unjust manner. Such refund is not permissible. In the present case, the refund application stated that the Service Tax is being collected at the prescribed rate of 5 and deposited in the prescribed manner . It is clear that the amount deposited towards Service Tax was collected by the party. Therefore, its refund would be against the provisions relating to unjust enrichment contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 5. In view of the position stated above, we uphold the rejection of the refund application and refrain from making any observation about the question whether appellant could seek refund of the amount in terms of the Contract Act etc.

  ---

• 2001 (12) TMI 1
  

  Service Tax – (1) Payment made by cheque (2) Interest (3) Imposition of penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... eque. Therefore, to this extent, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be maintained. 5. However, imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, on the appellants for having committed delay of 18 days in filing return, in our view, cannot be challenged. No sufficient cause has been made out by the appellants for that much delay in filing the return. The amount of penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 77 of the Finance Act, also cannot be said to be exhorbitant/unjust. This part of the impugned order deserves to be upheld. 6. In view of the discussions made above, the demand of interest of Rs. 1,34,805/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 400/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, is set aside while imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, is upheld. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly stands modified. The appeal of the appellants in these terms, stands disposed of.

  ---

1 ....1920212223