Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2006 2006 (10) 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 81 to 100 of 489 Records

• 2006 (10) TMI 439
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... kesh Ranjan Agrawal appearing for the respondent-assessee. 5. It is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that both the questions have to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 1) 2005 274 ITR 340 1, wherein this Court has held that interest on excess levy sugar price is an allowable deduction and in ITR No. 65 of 1996 - CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. decided on 28-4-2005, wherein this Court has held that the question of disallowance of interest does not arise in the case where the assessee-company had not charged interest on the advances given to its subsidiaries, namely, M/s. Dhampur Yeast Company and M/s. U.P. Straw Boards & Agro Products Ltd. 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid two decisions, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 438
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... given at the interest, we are not inclined to interfere. The Special leave petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 437
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urt would be turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the illegality in investigation which has been brought to its notice at the earliest stage. However, it also does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to a discharge and the closure of the case against him. As pointed out in Rishbud's case and Mubarak Ali's case, reinvestigation is to be ordered in the context of the provisions of Section 6A of the said Act. While the file is to be kept pending before Special Judge, approval of the Central Government is to be sought for investigation. If approval is accorded then the matter shall be re-investigated as per prescribed procedure and the material gathered in such re-investigation shall be placed before the Special Judge for further proceedings in accordance with law. If the approval is not given by the Central Government then the same shall be notified to the Special Judge who shall then close the case. 30. With these directions this revision petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 436
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ecision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Johnson and Johnson Limited 2005 (188) E.L.T. 467 (S.C.) . No costs. No orders are required to be passed on I. A. No. 3.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 435
  

  Whether the order of detention passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Hubli, Dharwad city, directing detention of one Shri Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 valid?

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 434
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ment of modvat credit on such materials. Whatever allegations have been made in the show cause notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with each of the allegations by giving adequate reasoning and sufficient discussion. Perhaps the availment of modvat credit on the fake invoices to the rune of ₹ 1,06,376/ - must be the basis for the department to allege about non-receipt of the inputs on which the original authority gave his finding. As a matter of fact, this part of allegation is found correct and the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the same in his impugned order while setting aside the interest and penalty on the said amount since it was paid much prior to issue of show cause notice. I have also gone through the grounds of appeal which are found to be not valid and impress me to take a different view on the finding arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in my considered view, the revenue appeal lacks merits. Accordingly the appeal is rejected.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 433
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... oned. Appeal admitted. List with C.A. No. 6770 of 2004.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 432
  

  Whether if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held?

  Whether the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged?

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 431
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... itals Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India 2001 (133) E.L.T. 58 (Mad.) , this Court considered the issue in a batch of writ petitions on merit, set aside the order passed by the authorities and remitted the matter back-to re-consider the issue. As against the said decision, writ appeals are pending before the Division Bench. Not only before this Court, but also before several other High Courts, the similar action taken by the authorities were challenged and some writ petitions and writ appeals are pending. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and in view of the fact that a large number of writ petitions and writ appeals pending, on merits, this Court is of the view that the delay can be condoned. 4. Accordingly, the order non-suiting the petitioner for condonation of delay is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to take up the appeal on file and decide the issue on merits. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is dismissed.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 430
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... available having been substituted by new Cenvat Rules with effect from 31/03/2000. As such, it is their contention that since the said provision was not in existence on the date of issuance of show cause notice, the notices liable to be struck down on this ground only. For the above proposition they relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sunrise Structurals and Engineering Ltd., and Others vs. CCE, 2004(117)ECR 307(T). 3. I find that the Tribunal in the above referred decision has held that the law applicable on the date of issuance of show cause notice has to be invoked and when Rule 57I was not in existence in the statute book and there was no saving clause, the show cause notice cannot be sustained. Inasmuch as in the present case also show cause notice was issued by invoking Rule 57I, which was not in the statute book, I hold that the same cannot be upheld. Accordingly, on this short ground itself the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 429
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed the appellants to deposit interest with the revenue under Section 11D. 2. I find that the appellant was availing the credit and paying duty out of the same, as such, the entire situation was revenue neutral. The issue is entirely covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of PSL Holdings vs. CCE, Rajkot (2003 (156) ELT 602 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Systematic Steel Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi (2005 (191) ELT 663 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, (Appeals) Ahmedabad vs. Narayan Polyplast (2005 (179) ELT 20 (S.C.). 3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 428
  

  Whether NPA admissible as on 1.1.1986 is to be taken into consideration after refixation of pay on notional basis as on 1.1.1986?

  Whether NPA is to be added to the minimum of the revised scale while considering stepping up the consolidated pension on 1.1.1996?

  Whether the Circular dated 11.9.2001, is only a clarification, or an amendment, to the Circular dated 7.6.1999?

  Whether the Circular dated 7.6.1999 as clarified by Circular dated 11.9.2001, leads to unequal treatment of those who retired prior to 1.1.1996 and those who retired after 1.1.1996 solely with reference to date of retirement?

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 427
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... is not necessary that the said agent must deal with the goods directly.’ The decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory was dissented by another Bench of the Tribunal in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 261 (Tri.-Del) wherein it was held that the decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory laying down procurement of orders on commission basis without physical handling of the goods to be covered by the entry of clearing and forwarding is not the correct statement of law. The matter has been referred to a Larger Bench. 9. It is clear from the above discussion that the activity of filling up the forms for valuation goods for payment of Octroi, making Octroi payment and completing related legal formalities on behalf of the client cannot be classified under the category of clearing and forwarding services. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 426
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was not per se enough for making the addition. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A). It was held that the assessing officer having accepted gross profit rate and having not pointed out any suppressed sales or inflated purchases or any other discrepancy in the books of account, addition was not justified merely on the ground that there was variation in the stock statement furnished to the bank and the closing stock in the accounts books. 3. We have perused the impugned order and heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact. The counsel for the revenue could not point anything to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse. 5. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Further, we find that ITA No.193 of 2005 (CIT v. Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills), raising a similar question of law, was dismissed by this Court on August 16,2005. 6. The appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 425
  

  Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee could go into the validity or otherwise of the certificate granted by the authorities?

  Whether the persons named or called Thandans in Malabar area were intended to be covered by the 1976 Order?

  Whether a caste certificate has rightly been issued or not?

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 424
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he nomination of the “Line Ministry” will be intimated to the petitioner immediately and upon submission of the certificates by the petitioner for countersignature, the “Line Ministry” so nominated after consultation, will either get the certificates countersigned by the proper officer and returned to the petitioner within one month of the date on which the certificates are received by the “Line Ministry” along with a certified copy of this order, or the “Line Ministry” or the proper officer of the “Line Ministry”, not below the rank of Joint Secretary, will pass a reasoned order for refusing to countersign all the certificates or any of the certificates. 7. For a period of three months from today, proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices issued by the Central Excise Department and Customs Department in this regard will remain stayed. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 423
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e case of AR. Ashish V. Patil v. CCE 2006 5 STT 325 (Mum. - CESTAT) wherein Tribunal has upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on similar ground. 3. After hearing and perusal of the records, I find that penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unduly harsh. I therefore, following the ratio of the above orders, set aside the impugned order and restore the penalty amount under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the originally determined amount. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 422
  

  Whether the appellant has committed any embezzlement or not?

  Whether the departmental proceedings could have been initiated even after the judgment of acquittal is passed in criminal case?

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 421
  

  Whether Clause (g) of Entry IV of the First Schedule of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short "the 1991 Act") as amended by Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2004 read with Explanation (7) of the First Schedule thereof constitutionally valid?

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 420
  

  Whether Constitution(Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001,amendment, the State of Karnataka passed an enactment giving benefit to its employees, constitutionally valid?

  ---

123456789........ 25