|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 608 Records
-
2004 (7) TMI 666 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o p /o p 8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not think it fit to entertain this petition at this stage, when all interested parties including exporters and importers are provided an opportunity to submit their views and are also assured of oral hearing. o p /o p 9. We, accordingly dispose of this petition with an observation that it will be open to the petitioners to request the Designated Authority to consider their representations dated 7th and 9th July 2004 expeditiously and that if the petitioners submit their views against the above notification dated 30.6.2004 containing preliminary findings, there is no manner of doubt that the same along with the views of the other interested parties, shall be considered by the Designated Authority with utmost expedition, particularly in view of the fact that the impugned notification dated 30.6.2004 may be followed by a notification levying provisional anti-dumping duty. o p /o p 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. o p /o p
-
2004 (7) TMI 665 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sessing Officer’s failure to do so is that the entire addition is bad. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 1980 125 ITR 713 ftn2Satish Gupta v ITO.htm the Supreme Court held that if any evidence itself used against the assessee is not shown to him and an opportunity to controvert the same is not given to the assessee that evidence shall not be admissible in support of the addition. It was specifically held in that case that the Income-tax authorities are bound to accede to the request for cross-examination and if they do not do so, the addition cannot be sustained in the absence of any other evidence in support of the same. This position applies squarely to the present case. The addition suffers from a basic infirmity in the sense that it has been made without accepting the assessee’s request made at least twice before the Assessing Officer, to cross-examine Anand Prakash, I, therefore, delete the addition. 18. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earned Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, are quite proper and correct and they do not suffer from any such error or illegality so as to call for interference in the appeal. We have carefully gone through all the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. There could be no quarrel with regard to the principles enunciated therein. But the difficulty is about the application of those decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. We are of the clear view that the said decisions are clearly distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, no individual reference to each of those decisions is needed. We find no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant/company. 20. In the result, therefore, this writ appeal filed by the appellant/company stands dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 663 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... d transfer deeds. From the above sequence of events, I am firmly of the view that the respondents have failed to establish by production of necessary documents both the transfer of shares in favour of the second respondent and registration of the transfer of shares by the Company, without which the Company must, in the interest of justice, be directed, notwithstanding any of the discrepancies pointed out by Shri Venkatavaradhan, learned Counsel, to rectify the register of members of the Company by inserting the name of the petitioner in the place of the second respondent as claimed in the company petition and further that the Company shall issue duplicate share certificates in respect of the impugned shares in favour of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly, in exercise of the powers vested in Section 111 and the Company shall complete the whole process in terms of this order within 30 days of receipt of the same. With these directions, the company petition stands disposed of.
-
2004 (7) TMI 662 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessment year under section 147 shall remain in abeyance, nor any recovery shall be made in pursuance of the assessment order for the year 1996-97. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that in case, the question of jurisdiction is decided against the petitioner, she may be given liberty to approach the Court for challenging the said order. It need not be said that if any party is aggrieved by an order passed by the income-tax authority, he/she is at liberty to approach appropriate forum as prescribed under law, for which no specific liberty need to given. 12. We would like to clarify that we have not adjudicated upon the validity of the notice under section 147 on other grounds which might have been raised in the writ petition and which have been urged before us. The question is left open and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same as and when the occasion arises. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
-
2004 (7) TMI 661 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... hwar v. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr.) on 28th March, 2003 2003 (157) E.L.T. A137 (S.C.) , these Civil Appeals are dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... suit premises as well. No other point was urged. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited certain judgments to show that change of business in a shop from one trade to another does not amount to change of user. These judgments are not relevant for determining the controversy on the point under consideration. In all these cases the premises were let out for use as a shop for a specified trade such as cloth or cycle repairs etc. The tenant changed his trade and started using the shop for a different trade like dry cleaning or some other such trade. This Court held that change of trade many not amount to change of use of premises as the shop continued to be used as a shop. In our opinion, the shifting of the activities from office purpose to godown purpose is a change of use of premises. It is not shifting of the business from one trade to another trade. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 659 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... i) Show Cause Notice for the offence case has since been issued. ii) Reliance in case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires relied upon by theCommissioner (Appeals) is not relevant to the facts herein. 4. Considering that this Tribunal in the case of FloridaElectrical Industries ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi, 2004 (168) ELT 393(Tri.-Del.) has held that refund of amount deposited during theinvestigation when officers visited premises and alleged removal ofexcisable goods without payment of duty though Show Cause Noticeissued and personal hearing conducted by adjudicating authority, noduty liability determined even after lapse of more than 30 months -Revenue not entitled to retain amount deposited by assessee.Following this decision of the Tribunal, nothing contrary havingshown, we would also find no grounds in Revenue's appeal filed now,more so when the refunds have already been sanctioned and paid, assubmitted by the Ld. Advocate for the respondents. 5. Appeal dismissed. Pronounced in Court.
-
2004 (7) TMI 658 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t. He submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 3. In reply ld. JDR, Shri Madhiam supports the judgments of the lower authorities. He further submits that the penalty imposed is mandatory. He submits that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 4. I have perused the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and considered the rival contention submitted by both the parties. The ignorance of law cannot be made excuse for delay payment of tax. The legal provisions are clear and it cannot be made excuse for the delay payment of Service Tax. From perusal of the statements submitted along with the appeal shows that amount paid was grossly inadequate. In certain case, the tax deposited was 10 times less than the actual liability of the tax. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has elaborated and has dealt with all the points raised by the appellants. I do not find any force in the appeal. 5. Consequently, I dismiss the appeal. (Pronounced in Court on 5-7-2004)
-
2004 (7) TMI 657 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... his order dated 25-7-2000 in assessee's case for assessment year 1992-93 ignoring the fact that the order relied upon by him has not been accepted by the department." 19. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis of his appellate order on identical facts in assessment year 1992-93. The Revenue preferred appeal against that order in ITA 4113/Del./2000 which we have discussed separately above. In this view of the matter, the departmental appeal fails and is dismissed. 20. ITA 4115/Del./2000 Assessment year 1993-94-penalty under section 271(1)(c) . The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and cancelled the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act as he has allowed the quantum appeal of the assessee on the same issue of cash credit. We have dismissed the departmental appeal on quantum for the same assessment year in ITA 4116/Del./2000. Accordingly, the departmental appeal fails and is dismissed. 21. As a result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 656 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... l Excise, Jaipur reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) and the High Court has rightly so held. We thus see no reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the amount is required to be refunded (except as otherwise provided in the act). In so far as sub-section (6) is concerned, reading the same it appears that the Commissioner can exercise his discretion to withhold the refund in the circumstances mentioned herein and not otherwise. In this case, on the date when an application was rejected there were no proceedings pending against the assessee and therefore there is no question of withholding the amount payable in view of the order made by the assessing officer to the petitioner. Therefore it goes without saying that it is very clear that an application for refund ought to have been allowed under Section 30. In view of what is stated herein above we quash the proceedings of re-assessment and the order of rejection of the application of refund. We direct the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the refund application keeping in view the mandate of Section 30 within a period of 15 days. The petition stands disposed of.
-
2004 (7) TMI 654 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Club coming within the purview of the definition of establishment for the purpose of the Act was nebulous. It was so understood even by the Corporation itself which is evident from the fact that the action against the appellant for non-compliance of its liability was not taken for nearly 15 years until the visit of the Inspector of the Corporation on 17.6.1990. In that background even the Corporation was not very certain whether the word establishment used in the concerned notification of 26.3.1975 included a Club. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion to call upon the Club to make contribution for a period between 1975 to 1986 would be somewhat unreasonable. Thus in the peculiar facts of this case, we are in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the demand under the Act as against this Club can be enforced only from the year 1987 onwards. 7. For the reasons stated above, these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 653 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... , for enforcing attendance of any person, has been vested with the Assessing Officer under law not without a purpose, and the same is meant to be exercised so as to explore the truth by dissecting the layer-spread of haziness on true facts. An appropriate action, strict though it might have been, having not been taken by Assessing Officer, may be due to being too busy to spare time for taking such strict action in accordance with law as required in the above mentioned frustrating circumstances, the department cannot justifiably find an escape, suited to it, for making addition in the hands of assessee with the emphatic thrust of reasoning that the assessee has failed to produce V.D. Trivedi. Be that as it may, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal position, I am of the considered view that in the circumstances of the case this addition is uncalled for. I, therefore, delete the addition. 9. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 652 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is restored to the file of the AO. 36. The assessee during the course of hearing of appeal also took up an additional ground urging that assessments made were illegal and void as the same should have been made on the amalgamated-company which was then in existence. In other words, it is contended that M/s Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. came into existence on 1st Nov., 2002 and, therefore, assessment, if any, should have been made on the above successor company. However, ITO did not issue any notice to such company nor subjected the above company to assessment. The above point admittedly was not raised during the course of hearing of appeal. The alternative submissions of the assessee on merit have already been considered and decided. We, therefore, see no good ground to permit the assessee to raise above additional ground. The same is not entertained and is rejected. 37. The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas those of the assessee are allowed in terms stated above.
-
2004 (7) TMI 651 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . The Civil Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 650 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... DVO. So far as assessee's valuation was concerned, it was valued at ₹ 1,41,79,527 whereas the valuation made by DVO was at ₹ 1,58,38,500. In the opinion of Tribunal, 10 per cent difference usually occurs in two valuers and hence, the valuation shown by assessee was accepted. The Revenue has now come up in appeal against this finding. 6. We find no merit in the challenge laid by the Revenue. In fact, what is held by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The 10 per cent difference in the valuation made by the two valuers cannot be said to be either unreasonable or without any basis. It usually occurs and hence, if the authorities accepted the valuation of the assessee so far as the property in question is concerned, the said reasoning cannot be regarded as entirely illegal or illogical, or without jurisdiction. 7. The issue thus does not involve any question of law, much less substantial question of law. The appeal, thus fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
-
2004 (7) TMI 649 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the Income-tax Act, referred the following question for the opinion of a Third Member "Whether or not on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order under section 263 made by the learned CIT is justified and sustainable?" 2. Shri J.P. Bengra, Hon';ble Vice President (M), appointed as Third Member in this case, concurred with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member and held that the learned Commissioner was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The learned Third Member was thus of the view that the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Following the majority view in the matter, we hold that the impugned order under section 263 passed by the learned Commissioner is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly cancelled. The appellant, therefore, succeeds in her appeal. 4. In the result, and in accordance with the majority view, the appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 648 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... oods are being used for external defibrillators and these are not eligible for exemption. But this fact was suppressed by the appellants with an intention to evade duty. When the Department started making enquiries, they started taking the plea that these defibrillators can be used externally and internally and since these are capable of being used internally these are exempted. Therefore, we do not consider the subsequent events so relevant for coming to the conclusion whether there was a suppression of facts or mis-statement with an intention to evade payment of duty as the basic declaration filed by them has suppressed the basic and relevant facts. Therefore, we are convinced that extended period for demanding duty is applicable in this case. Therefore we do not find that any modification is required in the penalty imposed on the appellants. We accordingly, uphold the demand of duty for the extended period and penalty imposed and interest demanded. The appeal is rejected.
-
2004 (7) TMI 647 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the transactions mentioned in the seized annexure A-6, pages 66, 67 and 69 do not belong to the appellant and hence the addition made by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 42,27,900 is directed to be deleted." 17. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal accepted the submissions made by the assessee that the transaction does not belong to the assessee. It cannot be said that the finding is such to which no person of ordinary prudence will reach on the basis of material on record or that is founded on irrelevant consideration. The finding does not call for any interference under the domain of section 260A of the Act, which envisages only to consider and decide substantial questions of law arising out of the Tribunal’s order and not to re-appreciate the evidence and reach the finding on its own by the High Court. 18. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
........
|
