|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 677 Records
-
2007 (2) TMI 685 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Concealment of income - search conducted on a train by the police authorities - employee of the appellant was returning from Amritsar by train and were found in the possession cash in a search by Railway Police - According to the Appellant, he had gone to Amritsar to make some purchases of gold but the transaction did not materialise - Held that:- The Assessing Officer was of the view that the amount represented sales of gold made by the Appellant on earlier occasions and that the sale proceeds were being carried back to Delhi. The departmental authorities have considered the statements of some persons such as Arun Kumar, Neeraj Kumar and Kimti Lal, who were examined by the Department as well as some other material that has been placed on record. The view taken by all the authorities below is plausible and is not perverse in any manner. The Appellant was disbelieved for adequate reasons.
We do not think that any substantial question of law arises for our consideration. It is merely a matter decided on the evidence on record.
-
2007 (2) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mendment or clarification should be issued in this behalf inasmuch as even if a person is otherwise excluded by reason of holding a constitutional post or otherwise, he may still claim the benefit being a descendent of a person whose predecessors, being a member of the backward class, had hereditary occupation like black smith or gold smith etc. Accordingly, notification dated 27th May, 2000 being merely for notification of general public and the guidelines issued for the concerned officers, it is necessary that the State should amend the guidelines also. In this view of the matter, although while setting aside the report of the Narendran Commission, we direct the State to appoint a fresh Commission who should go into all these aspects of the matter and submit its report. The writ petition is allowed with the aforementioned directions and observations. We, however, for the present do not intend to pass any order on the contempt petitions. They shall remain pending. No costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 683 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 68 - Cash credits entries and purchases genuine or not - HELD THAT:- Considering the finding of the Tribunal, especially, on the issue raised in first question, concurrent finding is there and even for the issue raised in second question, no defect was found in books of accounts. Even ST Number of the party which has supplied the goods, has been shown.
No interference is called for - The appeal stands dismissed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 682 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ount. 6. The Tribunal considered the position and came to the conclusion that the amended statute has to be given full effect. If the assessee was not entitled to any interest on the cash compensatory support, it cannot be treated as its income for all practical purposes. We find, as it is admitted by both learned counsel, that the interest amount has already been paid over by the assessee to the revenue. In other words, the assessee does not have any amount left with it and yet the revenue seeks to tax that amount by way of income of the assessee, thereby negating the effect of the amendment which was retrospectively made to the statute. 7. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the contentions urged by the revenue. We do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal and, therefore, are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal that would warrant our interference under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 681 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ope to get the such transit pass endorsed at the exit check post by collusion/manipulation in the absence of goods. Thus, need is to tighten the departmental machinery at the level of the check post to avoid the collusion/manipulation at the check post. It came to the notice of the Court in some of the cases where penalty under section 15-A (1)(o) of the Act has been levied and the tax has been assessed on the ground that the transit pass/Form-34 have been got passed by collusion and manipulation with the check post officers and staff and despite the enquiry being ordered, no serious action has been taken. If the officer sitting at the top would not be able to take proper step to check the manipulation and in case of detection of such manipulation, serious action would not be taken the process of evasion would continue and for that the departmental officers are only be held responsible and none-else. For the reasons stated above, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 680 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aken to get the draft appeal prepared and the same was ready on 21st August, 2002. Even thereafter, for a period of 285 days the same remained unattended and there are no reasons as to why the same remained unattended, except to say that there was shortage of staff and the same was beyond the control of the predecessor. There is no other explanation given in the affidavit. 3. The aforesaid reasons do not make out any sufficient cause to condone the delay. We are not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. 4. The notice of motion stands dismissed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act, 1961. An identical situation had arisen in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vikram Aditya and Associates P. Ltd., (2006) 287 ITR 268 in which this Court had concluded that there was a gap in the law which appears to be exploited by the Assessee and that the legislature realise the lacuna and took steps to rectify it. But that did not mean the decision of the Assessing Officer was based on law as it was said to be erroneous. Following the decision rendered in Vikram Aditya and Associates, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 678 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... case for waiver has been made out, as in the case of the same assessee, for a prior period when the service tax was enhanced from 5 to 8 the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken a view that the amendment would not affect the policies taken prior to that date. Thus it shows that the department had taken a stand which it subsequently changed. In such a view of the matter prima facie case for waiver has been made out and we accordingly waive pre-deposit of the service tax and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal. 2. Since the amount involved exceeds ₹ 5 crores the appeal is fixed for out of turn hearing on 12-4-2007 along with appeal No. ST/295/2006.
-
2007 (2) TMI 677 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the sums relatable to Sales Tax and Excise duty as they do not form part of the total turnover for the purposes of computing profits derived from export, for claiming benefit under section 80HHC of the Act? Issue notice to the other side. Paper Book be filed within three months. List the appeal for final hearing after three months.
-
2007 (2) TMI 676 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... file took time moving from table to table. We are not satisfied with such explanation. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the Civil Appeal stands dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
-
2007 (2) TMI 675 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... Order has given a finding in Para 13 that the appellants would not be considered as a commission agent and further, they would not come within the purview of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. We note that this finding of the Commissioner is contradictory to Para 3.1 of the Show Cause Notice wherein it has been stated that the investigation reveals that the appellants has been providing business auxiliary service as commission agent. Even as per the Show Cause Notice is true, the appellants would be covered under the Notification No. 13/2003. In any case, we find that invocation of longer period is not at all justified as there is no evidence of suppression of facts. Thus we are allowing the appeal solely on time bar. On the question of leviability of the services rendered by the appellants, we do not find it necessary to give any finding. Therefore we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced on completion of hearing)
-
2007 (2) TMI 674 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... yperlink / /w LatentStyles /xml endif -- -- if gte mso 10 endif -- MR. C.N.B.NAIR, MEMBER TECHNICAL AND MR. M.V.RAVINDRAN, MEMBER JUDI For the Appellant Sh. R.Santhanam, Advocate For the Respondent Sh. S.M.Tata, SDR ORDER Per C.N.B.Nair Heard both sides and perused the record. The appellant is being denied the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of goods produced in the financial year 2004-2005 by holding that certain goods cleared as branded goods in 2003-04, actually were not branded goods. 2.mWe find that the assessment of 2003-04 has become final and revenue is not reopening those assessments. In such a situation, prima-facie, it is not open to revenue to contend that the goods assessed to full rate of duty as branded goods in 2003-04 have changed their character and have become unbranded. On the face of it, the demand is not sustainable. Accordingly, stay application is allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court).
-
2007 (2) TMI 673 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... o;Mandap Keepers’ and had not registered themselves as required under Section 69 and were not paying any Service Tax for the services rendered by them. I find that no independent reasoning has been given for imposition of penalty and also find that the applicants plea is that they were not aware that they were liable to service tax as ‘Mandap Keepers’ and immediately on knowing that they were liable to pay service tax under this heading they paid it together with interest. In this view of the matter I hold that no case for imposition of penalty exists and hold that penalty is not sustainable. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside in so far as the penalty is concerned and the appeal allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (2) TMI 672 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... held to be providers of ‘Mandap Keeper’ service, and such liability is not disputed. The question is only whether they are liable to penalty for non-registration, non-payment of service tax during the period in dispute and non-filing of periodical returns. I note that the appellants explanation for non-filing, non-registration etc. is that they did not get themselves registered with Service Tax due to ignorance of law but later paid the service tax and filed returns and did not collect service tax but paid service tax and interest from their own pocket and since there was no willful negligence, penalty is not called for. The authorities below have not given any finding as to why penalty is required to be imposed upon them. Only because penalty can be imposed, it is not necessary that in all cases penalty is required to be imposed. In this case I accept the explanation of the appellants and therefore set aside the penalty and allow the appeal. (Dictated in court)
-
2007 (2) TMI 671 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he revenue was of the impression that the service which can be covered under Clearing & Forwarding Agent would normally involve all the abovementioned activities. From the agreement which has been produced before us, we find that the appellant is not engaged in providing the services as contemplated by the above Trade Notice. 5. Further both the lower authorities had confirmed the demand, relying upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported at 2006 (2) S.T.R. 584 (Tri.) 2002 (145) E.L.T. 222. This very same decision was overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai as reported at 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321. Accordingly, the decision on which the lower authorities relied to confirm the demand, having been overruled by the Larger Bench, the appeal of the appellant succeeds. 6. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Order dictated in the open Court.)
-
2007 (2) TMI 670 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ants for all the activities. They had paid the service tax for the maintenance and repair services. The Apex Court in the case of Kone Elevators (India) Ltd. (supra) has taken a view that the activity is not erection but is a “sale” and it is not “works contract”. The learned Counsel also relied on the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 124 (Tri.) 2003 (155) E.L.T. 457 (T) , which has been affirmed by the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that the contract which was primarily basis wherein cannot be considered as consulting contract for levy of service tax. In view of these judgments, we are inclined to take a prima facie case in the assessee’s favour. Therefore the stay application is allowed by granting full waiver of pre-deposit of the amount and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal to come up for hearing in its turn. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2007 (2) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of this Court in T.N.Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (280 ITR 491) and holding that the Commissioner was not justified in deleting the addition, restored the order of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the above appeal. 5. In T.N.Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (280 ITR 491), this court held that merely because the Reserve Bank of India had given direction to the assessee to provide for non performing assets, the same could not override the mandatory provisions of the Act, as the provision for non-performing assets are of predominately capital in nature and accordingly, the assessee was not entitled to deduction. 6. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the decision cited supra, we do not find any substantial question of law that arises for our consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 668 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d charge tax accordingly. In appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, the assessee succeeded and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act was set aside. It was further noticed by the Tribunal in order that before issuance of notice under section 263 of the Act, even the proceedings under section 154 of the Act were also initiated but were dropped. It was found by the Tribunal that the ingredients required for exercise of power under section 263 of the Act were not available in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the revenue, we find no substance in the present petition. The Assessing Officer at the relevant time, while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act had treated the receipt to be capital receipt. Merely because there was a second opinion possible on the same facts, in those circumstances, the powers under section 263 could be exercised. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
-
2007 (2) TMI 667 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... 6 (3) S.T.R. 678 (T) 2005 (187) E.L.T. 47 (T) 2005-TIOL-488-CESTAT-MAD. 2. The learned Counsels submit as the issue is covered by the above noted judgments fully in assessees’ favour, the stay application and appeal can be allowed. 3. Heard learned JDR who attempted to distinguish the citations. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. We notice that the Commissioner ought to have applied the ratio of all these judgments which have categorically laid down that when a foreign concern transfers the technical know-how/technology, such transfer of service cannot come within the definition of Consulting Engineer Services. Therefore, the prayer for allowing the stay application and the appeal in the light of the above cited judgments is required to be accepted. Respectfully following the cited judgments, the impugned order is set aside and the stay application and appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2007 (2) TMI 666 - CESTAT BANGLORE
... ...
... ... ..... Consulting Engineers." We have no reason to disagree with the above view, which is well-considered. Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed." From the above order, it is seen that in respect of the appellant, the Tribunal has held that the services rendered by them amount to Consulting Engineer services. In these circumstances, as rightly contended by the appellant, the order of the Assistant Commissioner purported to be reviewed by the Commissioner of Services Tax merges wutg tge above mentioned order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we have no other option but to allow the appeal with consequential relief and set aside the impugned OIO. We have carefully considered the submissions and we are not in a position to take a different view then the view already expressed as noted supra. The issue is fully covered in assessee's favour, therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
........
|
