Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (8) 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 421 to 440 of 468 Records

• 2003 (8) TMI 48 - SC ORDER
  

  Valuation (Central Excise) - Exempted goods - Held that:- commodity - Spert in question itself was exempted from tax. Therefore, the question of valuation would not arise - In this light it is unnecessary to examine correctness of the decision of the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Countervailing duty - Tribunal held that goods imported were spinning waste arising during the conversion of man-made fibres as yarn and not waste arising in relation to manufacture of fibre itself or man-made filament yarn - Held that:- Department had not produced any material to show that the goods in question would not be a 'waste' and it was submitted that the decision in R.K. Synthetics and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. (1985 (12) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY) would squarely apply to the facts of the case. It is in those circumstances the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order made by the Collector. We find the decision in R.K. Synthetics and Fibres Pvt. Ltd.'s case does not seem to have been carried to this Court and the Tribunal having held that on the material available before it, they had to hold that it was 'waste' and not otherwise. When the Tribunal has come to the conclusion on facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the same - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Classification of electric fans of different varieties - Held that:- Restore the decision of the Collector (Appeals who based his decision on the fact that the fans in question were designed primarily as table fans, although they were capable for being hung from wall or ceiling. He rightly pointed out that, because of the peculiarity of design and manufacture, the concerned fans were entirely different from regular cabin fans which could not be adapted as table fans; also basing his decision on the description of the fans in the literature distributed by the appellants. The literature describes it predominantly as a table fan, though capable of being fixed on the wall or ceiling thus attracting ad valorem duty of 5% under T.I. No. 33(1)(a). There was no justification for the CEGAT to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). In favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Export - Denial of Rebate claim - Short duty paid - Held that:- Even though M/s. Gopi Synthetics has since paid the duty and it has been finally held that there was no fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, rebate is being denied to the appellants. This is being done on the specious plea that it was the duty of the appellants, before he exported the goods, to see that the correct amount of duty had been paid. We are unable to accept this submission. Benefit of rebate is not to be denied because there is short payment. Benefit can be denied only if there is short payment by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Once it has been held that there was no fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the party who was to pay the duty then the exporter cannot be denied rebate. - appellants will be entitled to rebate under the Notification - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 44 - SC ORDER
  

  Denial of exemption claim - Labels - Held that:- In regard to Printed paper labels, there is no dispute before the Tribunal either and that part of the order of the Tribunal in relation thereto has now become final. Insofar as other items are concerned the same are covered by decisions of this Court in Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - [1996 (11) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and in Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II - [1997 (7) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - cloth printed labels, aluminium foil printed labels, film printed labels and paper printed labels are eligible for exemption as a product of the print industry - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 43 - SC ORDER
  

  Penalty - Alteration in computation - Held that:- When the basis for computation of excise duty has been altered by the Tribunal, it may not be correct to levy penalty. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we think there is no basis to levy any penalty upon the appellants. The order made by the authorities, as affirmed by the Tribunal is set aside to that limited extent. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Application for refund claim - Held that:- . Merely because the departmental authorities took a long time to process the application for refund, the right of the appellant does not get defeated by the subsequent amendment made in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B. The Commissioner of Central Excise and the CEGAT were, therefore, justified in holding that the claim for refund made by the appellant had to be decided according to the law laid down by this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and would not be governed by the proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B.

  The restrictions in Section 11A and Section 11B would not apply to refund claims consequent upon finalisation of provisional assessment orders. In favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 41 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... HHC of the Act. The questions, which are formulated by the appellant are squarely covered by the decision of this court in the judgment dated July 1, 2003 in I.T.A. Nos. 251 of 2002 and 166 of 2002 CIT v. Chemmeens 2007 290 ITR 337 (Ker), in favour of the assessee and we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment in I.T.A. Nos. 251 of 2002 and 166 of 2002 will be appended to this judgment.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Property - income-tax dues of the sub-lessee - Even the sale certificate issued does not mention any liability towards the unearned increase and rightly so, since that was not a condition of the auction. Thus, there can be no question of burdening the petitioner with the said liability. If the terms of the sub-lease deed are taken into account, it is the sub-lessee who is liable to pay the amount and not the purchasers and if the CIT claims to have stepped into the shoes of the sub-lessee and executed the sale certificate in favour of the purchasers, then the liability is of the sub-lessee or the CIT, but certainly not of the purchasers. - Writ petition is allowed

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Question of fact or Question of law - Whether the purchases were bogus or not, is a pure question of fact, and this court cannot interfere with the same in this appeal under section 260A. - It must be remembered that in an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, this court cannot go into questions of fact, and can only interfere when there is error of law in the impugned order. This court under section 260A is not sitting like a court of first appeal and hence cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the Tribunal.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 38 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal - Whether the memorandum of appeal returned by the Delhi High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction presented as such to the Himachal Pradesh High Court is proper? - We hold that no properly constituted appeal has been filed in this court and the memo of appeal filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court as has been filed by the appellant in this court on being returned to it cannot be a substitute and hence cannot be treated as an appeal filed in this court under section 260A of the Income-tax Act - In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, the present application shall stand dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 37 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest amounting to Rs. 1,17,975 received on arrears of salary after grant of higher pay scale by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is not taxable ? - The present is not a case where the assessee might have been awarded interest under a statute sequent upon grant of arrears of salary on account of higher pay scale, but in fact paid interest in the discretion of this court vested in it under article , of the Constitution of India. The grant of interest was in the absolute discretion of the court and so would be the rate of interest in a case of this kind – Thus, the question, as referred by the Tribunal and as extracted above is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  This revision has been filed against the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 5432 of 2001, in C. C. No. 688 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Salem, dismissing the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner herein against whom a complaint has been given by the Income-tax Officer, for the offences punishable under sections 193, 196, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 276C(1) and 277 read with sections 278C - because of the pendency of the reassessment, the prosecution cannot be whittled down on that score and that the original assessment alone is to be considered for prosecution - revision petition of assessee is not maintainable

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Question of law - Assessee claimed that he had left India for the purposes of employment. The assessing authority as well as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee failed to produce any material to show that he had left India for the purposes of employment or that he had emigrated from the country for the same purpose. This being a finding of fact, cannot be reopened by us in appeal.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  This writ petition has been filed for revision of the interest amount and also challenging the order under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - whether under the said provision where the tax has been deducted at source (TDS), but it is deposited at a belated stage, the interest payable is simple or compound? And further question arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest could be charged at all? - held that if a statute provides for the remedy of revision, the writ petition is not maintainable

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 33 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Delay in presenting the appeal - sufficient cause - Limitation Act, 1963 - we are inclined to hold that sufficient cause has been made out for explaining the delay of 108 days in presenting the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed and the delay in presenting the appeal is condoned.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Computing the capital gain under section 48 - Tribunal was right in fixing the maximum rate of rupees one lakh per acre instead of Rs. 70,000 per acre for determining the market value and cost of acquisition as on April 1, 1981, for the purpose of computing the capital gain under section 48 of the Income-tax Act

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Tax deducted at source – building given on rent to a bank - status of payee - If the payee is an individual entitled to receive rent in excess of Rs. 1,20,000 per annum then the payer is obliged to deduct 15 per cent. thereof as tax deducted at source. If the payee is a body of individuals and if the rent payable exceeds Rs. 1,20,000 per annum, the payer is required to deduct 20 per cent. thereof as tax deducted at source. - tenant-bank was right in proposing to deduct tax of Rs. 99,198 as tax deducted at source while agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 6,20,512 to the petitioners jointly as and by way of rent

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, Tribunal was justified in entertaining miscellaneous application filed by the assessee and allowing the same by quashing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that the transaction did not result in taxable capital gains? –Whether, when the Tribunal held under order dated November 27, 1986, that there was no genuine conversion of the shares and debentures into stock-in-trade before transferring the same into partnership firm, the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining the claim of the assessee that the transfer did not result into taxable capital gains?" – Questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, the assessee in the accounting period relevant to the assessment order 197778 was a 'financial company' as defined in Explanation (c) to section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - A finding of fact has been recorded in the Tribunal's order that the principal business of the assessee was finance business. This is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this reference

  ---

1 ....18192021222324