|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 915 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 762 - ITAT, PUNE
Value of fringe benefits under s. 115WB(2)(H) - inclusion of Salary of drivers & Interest on loan taken for purchase of motor cars in the taxable value of fringe benefits - Held that:- in absence of specific provision laid down under clause. (H) to sub-section. (2) to s. 115WB of the Act, the AO was not justified in including the expenditure on payment of interest on loan taken for purchases of motor cars i.e., Rs. 3,11.580 to compute the fringe benefits. Every required related expenses like repairs, running (including fuel), maintenance of motor cars and the amount of depreciation thereon have been mentioned in specific wordings in the provision, hence the AO was not justified in including the interest expenditure incurred on loan taken for purchase, of motor cars for working out fringe benefits.
For expenses incurred on payment of salary to drivers - running of motor cars is a wider term to include payment of salary to drivers. In the provisions laid down under cl. (H) "running" has been supplemented by wordings "including fuel" under brackets. It reflects the very aim and object of the Legislature as expenditure incurred on running of car besides other will also include fuel expenses. It is a common knowledge that for running of a car besides fuel a driver is also required. It may be a sell driven car or a driver is employed to drive the car. Thus expenditure incurred on payment of salary to driver will be included in computing the expenses on running of the car within the meaning of the provision laid down under section. 115WB(2)(H) - Partly in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (7) TMI 760 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Levy of additional tax - Rectification of intimation u/s 143(1)(a) – Held that:- proceedings under section 154 of the Act for rectification cannot be initiated after issuance of notice under section143(2) by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. Accordingly, the questionof law as proposed, is answered against the Revenue, appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (7) TMI 757 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Credit of duty on goods brought to the factory - with the repeal for the old rules and enacting these two new rules, the legal position has not changed. In view of Rule 33, the notification issued under earlier Rules, is deemed to be valid and issued under the Rule 16 of the present Rules, as the same is relevant and consistent with the present Rule. A perusal of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that even if duty is paid, it is refundable. Earlier, no duty was leviable. Therefore, the notification issued earlier cannot be said to be in contravention of any of the rules and the authority to pass such notification could be traced to this rule. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee is not liable to pay any duty on the naphtha as it was brought back to the crude tank of the refinery for further processing in the production of petroleum products, the substantial questions of law framed by the revenue do not arise for consideration. Even if they arise for consideration, they are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, appeal is rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 756 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Condonation of delay - preamble to the Appellate Commissioner’s order did not guide the appellant properly inasmuch as it laid down not only appellate remedy but also revisional remedy. On the other hand, the ld. JDR submits that the cases in which a revision application to the Government of India could be filed as also other cases in which an appeal could be filed with this Tribunal were distinctly mentioned in the preamble to the impugned order - Held that:- appellant was mistakenly pursuing the revisionary remedy before the Government of India after receiving the Appellate Commissioner’s order. Upon the papers having been retuned by the revisionary authority, they filed an appeal with this Tribunal without unreasonable delay. In these circumstances, we allow the present application.
-
2010 (7) TMI 755 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Limitation - Appeal time-barred - Cenvat credit - appellant had availed Cenvat credit on certain inputs, which they later on reversed at the instance of the Department - Held that:- assistant Commissioner’s letter dated 17-3-2009 refusing to issue show-cause notice created civil consequences for the appellant. The appellant was, therefore, aggrieved and hence filed the appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal, filed on 1-5-2009, challenging the Assistant Commissioner’s view communicated in letter dated 17-3-2009, was very much within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not time-barred.
-
2010 (7) TMI 754 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether the ex-gratia/compensation receipt under V.R.S. partakes the character of salary or not - Whether the benefit of section 89(1) of the Act could be given to the assessee receiving ex-gratia/compensation or not – There is no prohibition to the twin benefits in respect of the amount received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The relief contemplated under Section 89 of the Act is aimed to mitigate the hardship that may be caused on account of the high incidence of tax due to progressive increase in tax rates and thus held that the benefits under Section 10 (10-C) and 89 could be granted to the assessee, view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld and appeal filed by the revenue has been dismissed. Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The order of the Tribunal is upheld, appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (7) TMI 753 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Revision Application - Penalty - Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surgeet Singh Chhabra has observed that statement made before the Customs Officer though re-tracted within six-days is an admission and binding since Customs Officers are not police officers under section 108 of the Customs Act and FEMA. Further it is a settled law that statutory obligations as provided by the statute and classified by the concerned department are not mere formalities but these are to be strictly adhered to, Government therefore is of the conclusive opinion herein that the Applicant as having been filed, processed and got the impugned Shipping bills (goods) cleared, through its employees is very much responsible and concerned with these established fraud cases involving contraventions of Customs Act, 1962 and as such has rightly been held liable to penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Act ibid, Government, therefore, is in conformity with the views of Commissioner (Appeals) and the impugned order-in-appeal is thus upheld for being legal and proper, Government do not find any merits in these Revision Applications and the same are here by rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 751 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund of excise duty under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act - excise duty has not been passed on to the customer - Held that:- when the duty at a higher rate was paid by the manufacturer to the Department is not collected from the customer, in other words, if the higher duty is not passed on to the customer and the customer has not paid the said amount, the assessee is entitled to refund of that excess amount paid at a higher rate, substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2010 (7) TMI 750 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Security services - Penalty - appellant does not dispute confirmation of service tax but submits that it is not a case of invoking penal provisions against them inasmuch as there was a lot of confusion in the case as regards service tax and the appellants were under a bona fide belief that no service tax is required to be paid by them - Held that:- nothing on record to show that the tax was not paid by the assessee on account of any mala fidies on their part, in which case the benefit of provisions to section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is required to be extended to them, demand of service tax confirmed against the appellant, penalties imposed upon them under various sections of the Finance Act set aside, appeal is allowed
-
2010 (7) TMI 747 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Manufacturing of handy-craft - Whether exemption notification can be claimed at any point of time - Held that:- benefit of Notification No. 76/86-Central Excise is not available to the respondents or the same has been wrongly extended by the Commissioner (Appeals), the benefit of any notification, if otherwise available cannot be denied on the sole ground that the same is claimed belatedly. merits in the respondents plea that the Revenue has not raised any grounds against setting aside of penalties on the respondents, no merits in the appeals and the same are accordingly, rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 745 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Delay in payment of tax - appellants submits that failure to pay service tax and to follow other statutory formalities by the appellants had been occasioned by reasons beyond his control. He had to visit his native place in Uttar Pradesh frequently during the material period for treatment of his father, who was ailing and eventually expired on 4.12.2007. The relevant death certificate is on record. He submits that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade the impugned tax – Held that:- appellants already paid the service tax and the interest found due from them before issuance of the show-cause notice, allegation of intention to evade service tax is absent in this case, penalties imposed under Sections 78 and 77 of the Act may not be sustainable. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 is on a different footing. The same is imposed for delay in payment of tax during the material period. Section 76 provides for imposing penalty ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200/- per day. In the facts of the case, the maximum penalty provided under this Section is apparently not imposable, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the balance dues adjudged against the appellants pending decision in the appeal.
-
2010 (7) TMI 744 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Stay application - demand of service tax against the appellants but did not impose any penalty by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- contract between the appellants and ONGC, appellant is undertaking services and for rendering such services, they are using mobile units "workover rigs". The nature of activities, prima facie, support the view of the Commissioner that the same are in the nature of management, maintenance and repairing services. We also, prima facie, agree with the submission of the ld. Jt. CDR that the Tribunal in the earlier order has not upheld the view of the Commissioner's earlier findings that the dispute involving legal interpretation and that the belief of the appellants is bona fide, it is not a case for full waiver of dues as per the impugned order. - Pre-deposit ordered partly.
-
2010 (7) TMI 741 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - lower appellate authority has upheld the penalties imposed under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, but has set aside the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, one of the penalties imposed under Section 76 or under Section 78, is sufficient keeping in view the subsequent amendment to the law making these penalties mutually exclusive, the department's appeal is rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 739 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Levy of service tax - levy under the category of business auxiliary service - goods were not dealt by the present appellants. But they get consideration for service provided to boost the sales of the aforesaid principal who compensated the appellant by way of commission. - Held that:- demand are very small in nature and there is a difference in judgement by the revenue, pre-deposit of 20 per cent of the service tax demanded, predeposit of balance demand shall be waived till the disposal of appeal
-
2010 (7) TMI 737 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of section 65(30a) read with section 65(105)(zzq) and section 65(105)(zzzh) read with section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 - construction services - builders - no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners for the recovery of service tax in relation to the provision in question, but it is clarified that assessments may proceed in accordance with law
-
2010 (7) TMI 736 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Whether catering service can be considered as an input service for manufacture of finished goods - Held that:- service tax credit in respect of catering service is not admissible in respect of manufactured goods, order set aside by confirming the demand of service tax and interest while setting aside the penalty imposed. The department's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 735 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund - excess duty paid - assessee paid the duty at the rate of 16% as against 8% - customer has not paid his excess duty to the assessee, he relied on a debit note raised by the customer in his name - Held that:- customer is not claiming refund, when he has raised a debit note, when he refuses to pay excess duty claimed, the only inference to be drawn is that the assessee has not received that excess duty which he has paid to the department, in which event, the department is bound to refund to the assessee the excess duty calculated which is not in dispute, finding of the Tribunal is sound and just and does not call for interference, substantial question of law raised is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 733 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Retail sale – confiscatioin of goods - declaration as required under Rules 6 and 6(1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Retail sale to the ultimate consumer for the purpose of consumption of the commodity contained therein. - Proviso to Rule 2(p) further clarifies that the ultimate consumer shall not include industrial or institutional consumers, which means retail package means the packages which are intended for retail sale and which are not meant for industrial or institutional consumers. The packages in question are seized from a retail shop which prima facie means the packages were meant for retail sale to a retail consumer - Held that:- packages were seized in the retail outlet. Industrial consumers will have to buy the packaged commodities directly from the manufacturers or packers for using their products in the industry, only then the provisions of Rule 6 is exempted. Hence, the provisions of Rule 6 are applicable to the matter on hand, Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 730 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deduction under section 80-I of the Act - cost of the raw material and consumable stores purchased by SMS-I was transferred and debited to the profits and loss account of various units - units had realised the maximum realisable price from the head office - Held that:- section 80-I(8) are not applicable in the instant case and hence the proviso to section 80-I(8) can also not be invoked, entire exercise of re-allocation of various expenses on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was unwarranted, question answered against the Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 728 - ITAT, LUCKNOW
Block assessment- validity of initiation of proceedings under section 158BD- Held that:-The satisfaction contemplated under section 158BD to the effect that any undisclosed income belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was conducted under section 132 or requisition made under section 132A, is to be recorded in writing by the AO of the person with respect to whom search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A is made. Further, the satisfaction contemplated under section 158BD is required to be recorded by the AO of the person searched at any time but not later than the finalization of assessment of undisclosed income for the block period under Chapter XIV-B in the case of the person put to search or requisition, as the case may be. Secondly, insofar as the issuance of notice under section 158BD is concerned, the same is to be issued by the AO of the person, other than the person put to search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A. That too, after transmission of the relevant material from the first-mentioned AO, i.e., the AO of the person put to search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A .Therefore, the proceeding initiated by issuing the notice under section 158BD in the case of the assessee was not valid proceeding. As such the block assessment framed in the hands of the assessee was bad in law. See Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT (2007 - TMI - 40384 - Supreme Court). Decided in favor of the assessee.
............
|
