Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 354 of 354 Records
-
2003 (6) TMI 15
By this writ application the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 maintainability - I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits; simply because I am not willing to decide such question before initiation of criminal proceedings, I have decided not to entertain this application. The writ application is, thus, dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 14
Penalty under section 18(1)(c) - "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the cancellation of the penalties levied by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act?" - we, therefore, cannot presume that the assessee had a mala fide intention to furnish inaccurate particulars. As mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence and as both the appellate authorities have arrived at a finding that the assessee had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of the asset in question, we would not like to come to a different conclusion with regard to the intention of the assessee. - it cannot be said that the Tribunal had committed an error
-
2003 (6) TMI 13
Tax avoidance - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in finding that tax was avoided without ascertaining whether there is any revenue loss on account of non-inclusion of the income in question in the assessee's assessment and its inclusion in the assessment of the sister concerns?" - the Tribunal was right when it came to the conclusion that tax was avoided and for coming to the said conclusion it was not necessary for the Tribunal to ascertain whether any loss was caused to the Revenue - we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2003 (6) TMI 12
Power of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to receive additional evidence - Assessing Officer was of the view that there is no evidence of the identity and capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions and hence made an addition u/s 68 - In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee had produced two confirmation letters which were rejected by the CIT (Appeals) - Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the first appellate authority had any case that the assessee was given several opportunities to produce the confirmatory letters and that the assessee did not avail of the said opportunity by obtaining and producing the confirmatory letters from the two persons Thus, CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit additional evidence Further held that processing charges received will not constitute part of the export turnover since only sale proceeds of goods or merchandise alone will form part of the turnover
-
2003 (6) TMI 11
Imposition of interest under section 201(1A) non deduction of tax at source on payments made to employees - Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee had paid bonus which forms part of the salary and therefore there was statutory obligation cast on the assessee to deduct tax from such payment - Orders were passed under section 201 declaring the assessee-in-default - orders of the assessing authority passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are legal and valid since there was no period of limitation in view of the omission of section 231 from April 1,1989, prior to the expiry of the period of limitation provided in the said section Thus, imposition of interest was liable to be sustained
-
2003 (6) TMI 10
Capital/Revenue expenditure - Actual cost of assests Depreciation - payment of gratuity to these employees till the date of transfer was deferred by reason of the terms of the agreement and the liability accrued till that date and payable by the transferor was taken over by the assessee. Thus, this liability became part of the consideration paid for the assets transferred and is liable to be added to the consideration mentioned in the agreement. It cannot be construed otherwise. This is to be treated as capital expenditure Thus, Tribunal was justified in law in directing to recompute the cost of the assets treating the gratuity liability as part of the actual cost of the assets and allow depreciation accordingly
-
2003 (6) TMI 9
Contention of the petitioner is that he has filed an appeal against the block assessment order, which is pending before the CIT (Appeals), - An application filed under section 220(6) has been rejected by the Assistant CIT after a period of more than one year, on the ground that more than a year has passed and he had not deposited the amount and therefore the demand cannot be stayed - A perusal of the impugned order shows that discretion which has been exercised by CIT in rejecting the application, does not give any reason nor has it been exercised judiciously, therefore, liable to be set aside. Petition allowed
-
2003 (6) TMI 8
Whether the Assessing Officer in the instant case had jurisdiction under the Act to refer the question of cost of construction of a building constructed by the assessee to the Departmental Valuation Officer. - According to us, section 142(2) of the Act enables the Assessing Officer to refer the question of cost of construction of a building for the limited purpose of gathering information regarding the cost of construction. It did not have any binding effect on the Assessing Officer. It only had the effect of information gathered in an enquiry. As per sub-section (2) of 142, For the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person, the Income-tax Officer may make such enquiry as he considers necessary." Thus, Assessing Officer was well within his power to gather information regarding the cost of construction by making a reference to the Executive Engineer, Valuation Cell.
-
2003 (6) TMI 7
Review - order was not detailed due to a bona fide mistake - In impugned order application preferred by the respondent-assessee u/s 254(2), has been allowed. Revenue contend that this course amounts to reviewing the earlier order which is not permissible under the law - In fact, in the present case a finding in favour of the respondent-assessee was already recorded in the main order passed by the Tribunal on July 13, 2001. The said main order passed by the Tribunal on July 13, 2001, was not challenged by the Revenue at any stage. In fact, the Tribunal has already recorded a finding against the Revenue but the operative part of the order was not detailed due to a bona fide mistake. By the impugned order the operative part of the earlier order has been clarified. Against such an order we find that no appeal would be maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved in the said appeal.
-
2003 (6) TMI 6
Service Tax (1) Late payment by Government Department (2) Delay cause (3) Interest ... ... ... ... ..... d by the statement being sent to DOT Headquarters is avoided. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the appellant is a Central Government Department and that it had been strictly following the procedure approved by Principal Chief Controller of Accounts and which procedure has resulted in the delay and the fact that the amount received from the subscribers were deposited on a day to day basis in the Post Office to the account of the Central Government, we find that the appellant cannot be burdened with the liability to pay interest. We make it clear that this view is being taken only in the facts of this case where the delay is caused in depositing the service tax in the specific account of the Central Government by none other than a department of the Central Government and also because of the fact that the amount was deposited in the account of the Central Government on a day to day basis. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (6) TMI 5
Service Tax (1) Payment made by cheque (2) Realization of cheque ... ... ... ... ..... of interest/penalty etc. However, if the cheque is not honoured in due course or the clearance is abnormally delayed for any lapse on the part of the assessee, the department would be free to take penal action etc. as deemed fit. 2. Shri Hemant Kotikar, ld. SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue has brought to my notice the amended provisions of Rule 2A of the Service Tax Rules. It clearly provides that if the assessee deposits the service tax by cheque, the date of presentation of cheque to the bank designated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs for this purpose shall be deemed to be the date on which service tax has been paid subject to realization of that cheque. In this case it is undisputed that the cheques have been realized a day or two later. He therefore clearly concedes that the appellants have got some merits and he has no objection for allowing the appeal filed by the appellants. 3. In view of above said position, I allow the appeal filed by the appellants.
-
2003 (6) TMI 4
Service Tax (1) Late payment (2) Failure to perform statutory obligation (3) Imposition of penalty
-
2003 (6) TMI 3
Service Tax Collection of telecom charges - Late payment - No delay on part of appellant so could not be faulted for following collection and accounting procedure laid down by govt. itself so interest not payable
-
2003 (6) TMI 2
Service Tax If any amount are collected erroneously which is not in force, there is no bar to the return of such service tax amount
....
|