|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 926 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... think it seemly that the assessing officer should afford another opportunity to hear the petitioner so that he can establish that there has been really no fault and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment. In view of the aforesaid, we would like the assessing officer to hear the petitioner by issuing a fresh notice within a period of six weeks and thereafter pass a reasoned order. It is open to thepetitioner to elaborate and make more detailed objection. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part, the order dated 15.7.2011 is set aside and the assessing officer is directed to deal with the matter afresh as per law. As conceded to by the counsels, the period consumed because of the pendency of the writ petition and for the remit that we have directed (i.e. period of six weeks from today or the first hearing whichever is earlier) shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation. No costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1112
MAT Provisions of Section 115JB - Applicable on banks or not? - CIT(A) rejected the claim that the provisions of section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee bank as the same is not a company under the Companies Act, 1956 as held in MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. [2001 (8) TMI 310 - ITAT MUMBAI] - HELD THAT:- We find that recently the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of KRUNG THAI BANK PCL VERSUS JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI [2010 (9) TMI 18 - ITAT, MUMBAI], held that the starting point of computation of MAT under sec. 115JB is the result shown by such a P&L a/c. In the case of banking companies, however, the provisions of Sch. VI are not applicable in view of exemption set out under proviso to s. 211(2) of the Companies Act. The final accounts of the banking companies are required to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. The provisions of s. 115JB cannot thus be applied to the case of a banking company.
Further, in the cases of RE. PRAXAIR PACIFIC LIMITED [2010 (7) TMI 51 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS] and RE. THE TIMKEN COMPANY [2010 (7) TMI 50 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS], it was held that MAT provisions are applicable to a foreign company that does not have a physical presence in India, as such, companies are not required to prepare its accounts as per Companies Act. Therefore, respectfully following the above cited decisions of the Tribunal, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the bank is not required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act and therefore, the provisions of MAT in section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1111
100% EOU - appellant received 737 drums/barrels of finished goods from their Berhampur warehouse. Out of these, 566 drums of finished goods became unfit for human consumption - petitioner submit that the appellant intimated about spoiled goods in 737 drums well in advance and, as the department delayed inspection, the appellant had to destroy the same along with 198 more drums received subsequently because of the objection of the villagers regarding sanitation problems
-
2011 (8) TMI 1110
... ...
... ... ..... reign currency collected by them from the foreign company. Even in the order passed by the original authority, we have found a crucial finding to the effect that the assessee had been entertaining bona fide doubts regarding their tax liability. In our view, having so found, the original authority should have stated better reasons to invoke the extended period of limitation for recovery of service tax from the assessee. On the part of ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it was held that the appellant had suppressed the facts and hence the larger period was invocable. The appellate authority, obviously, did not consider the assessee’s plea of bona fide belief based on circulars, notifications, etc. 5. On our part, without going into the issues on merits, we are of the view that we are justified in setting aside the demand of service tax on the ground of limitation. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed on the stated ground. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1109
... ...
... ... ..... officer causing unnecessary harassment to the dealers and resulting in creation of avoidable litigation. Earlier also, in Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the same officer had been burdened with costs of 10,000/- to be recovered from him personally. Considering the fact that he has still not corrected his way of working, costs be imposed upon him. The stand of learned counsel for the State was that the officer was working in the best interest of the State and is one of the honest officers. After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, considering the conduct of the officer, who dealt with the case of the petitioner in the manner which was indefeasible and the State had to ultimately concede the relief prayed for, the officer deserves to be burdened with costs of 25,000/-. The amount shall initially be paid by the State, however, the same shall be recovered from the officer. The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... epresentation of the petitioner for releasing of the bank guarantee and the goods within the stipulated time. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the respondent No.2 shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks by ascribing reasons so that the parties as well as the authorities who will deal with the representation would be in a position to know on what foundation the representation is allowed or rejected. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. A copy of order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1107
Whether Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms amendment Act, 1973, (Act 1 of 1974), which came into effect from 01.03.1974, read with Section 79 B of the said Act, introduced by amending Act 1 of 1974, violates the basic structure of the Constitution, in so far as it confers power on the Executive Government, a delegatee of the Legislature, of withdrawal of exemption of Linaloe plantation, without hearing and without reasons?
Whether the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, (the Acquisition Act), is protected by Article 31C of the Constitution?
Whether the true interpretation of Article 300A of the Constitution, the said Act is violative of the said Article in so far as no specific compensation prescribed for the acquisition of 468 acres of Linaloe plantation, and, after deduction of liabilities and payment of compensation for the artefacts, no balance may and/or is likely to exist for payment of such compensation, as a result of which, whether the Act really is expropriatory in nature?
Whether on true interpretation of Article 300A of the Constitution, the said Act is violative of Article 300A as the said Article is not, by itself, a source of Legislative power, but such power of the State Legislature being traceable only to Entry 42 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution viz., "Acquisition and Requisition of Property", which topic excludes expropriation and confiscation of property?
If Article 300A of the Constitution is construed as providing for deprivation of property without any compensation at all, or illusory compensation, and hence providing for expropriation and confiscation of property, whether the said Article would violate the rule of law and would be an arbitrary and unconscionable violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, thus violating the basic structure of the Constitution?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... rovisions applicable in all cases is same as obtained in the assessment year 2003-04, (ii) that all assessees at the relevant time had turnover of more than 10 crores and (iii) that the cases involved are instances of transfer of DEPB credits. 46. In the result, to the extent mentioned above, decisions of the Tribunal involved in respective appeals are reversed. The appeals are allowed accordingly. 47. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate Shri Soparkar requested that the Court may grant certificate under Articles 133 and 133A of the Constitution as the case involves substantial question of law of general importance. We are of the opinion that looking to the nature of controversy, the all India repercussion on large number of assessees as also the question of interpretation of various provisions, the case does involve substantial question of law of general importance. In our opinion, such question needs to be decided by the Apex court. We accordingly, grant the certificate.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1105
Challenge to conviction of assessee. - Import of prohibited goods - misdeclaration - Import of huge quantity of gold.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1104
... ...
... ... ..... veral independent units cannot be an impediment to the relief u/s 54.” 5. In view of the above judgements, we are of the opinion that the judgements relied by the department in the case of Dr. A.S. Atwal Vs. CIT (277 ITR 462) (P&H) is not applicable to the present case. In that case the assessee had sold a plot with a tin shed and sale proceeds were utilised in purchasing a house and the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54. That the tin shed on the plot could not be considered as a residential house and therefore the capital gains arising out of transfer of the said plot along with the tin shed did not qualify for exemption u/s 54. The facts of this case are totally different from the facts of the present case and hence are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the revenue. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1103
... ...
... ... ..... any amounts are to be denied on account of overvaluation, the quantum of overvaluation should be arrived at on a reasonable basis and the same should be brought out clearly. Only in respect of the quantum of overvaluation DEPB credit should be denied. 16. While re-adjudicating the matter there is a need to re-examine the issue whether the time frames for realization of export proceeds have been extended by the competent authority for any consignemnts and export proceeds have been realized in such extended time. 17. It is very obvious that the amount that can be recovered from the Appellants in cash will be only to the extent of ineligible credit utilized for payment of customs duty and this aspect also has to be kept in mind while adjudicating the case afresh. 18. For reasons explained above the consequences ordered against the appellants in the impugned order are set aside and the matter is remanded for de-novo adjudication as per directions above. (Pronounced in Court on)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1102
... ...
... ... ..... furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of income. In the penalty order, the A.O. had taken both the items for the purpose of imposing the penalty and by following this judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) and also in the case of Manu Engineering Works (supra), the penalty was cancelled. In the present case also, since the A.O. has not given clear cut finding as to whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed the particulars of income, all these judgments are squarely applicable and respectfully following the same, we hold that the penalty order cannot be sustained because no clear cut finding has been given by the A.O. at the time of imposing the penalty as to whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income. We hold accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1101
Bogus purchases - Held that:- There was evidence on record to suggest that though purchases may not have been made from M/s. Shreenathji Industries as initially suggested by the assessee in the books of account, nevertheless the factum of actual purchases was placed for verification by the assessee before the authorities. In fact, assessee's assertion appears to have been that purchases had to be made from other parties who were not reflecting such sales in their account for saving taxes such as incometax, sales tax etc.
Be that as it may, we see no material distinction in facts involved in the present case and in case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries (2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). It is true that the Delhi High Court treated the issue somewhat differently. However, when the decision of our Court lays down certain ratio, in the absence of any special reason to differ, we would have to follow the same.
Other issues are consequent in nature. As already recorded, CIT (Appeals) had addressed the issue of applicability of section 40A(3) of the Act. Under the circumstances, though it is true that the Tribunal did not separately discus this issue, only for that reason, we see no reasons to interfere.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1100
Whether the qualifications prescribed in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short, "the Rules") for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector are mandatory?
Whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors in compliance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court are entitled to continue in service despite reversal of the order of the learned Single judge by the Division Bench?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1099
... ...
... ... ..... justified in deleting both the disallowances 10.0 Now we take up the C.O. of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05. 10.1 The first ground of C.O. of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses of ₹ 3,74,854/- incurred for issue of Bonds by treating the same as capital expenditure. 10.2 Following our order for the assessment year 2003-04, we hold that such expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure. 11.1 The second ground of C.O. of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 31,16,091/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of provision for contractual obligation. 11.2 Following our order for the assessment year 2003-04, we hold that the AO was not justified in disallowing a sum of ₹ 31,16,091/-. 12. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 05-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1098
Refund claim - SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - denial on the ground that the applicant, while issuing the invoice for sale of the imported goods, did not specifically indicate in the invoice that no credit of additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the CTA was admissible - Held that: - the applicant is not a registered dealer for the purpose of passing of credits. Further, the invoices produced for our perusal, which have been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), do not indicate any amount of Customs Duty separately and, therefore, the basis of fear that these documents could have been used for taking credit does not exist - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1097
... ...
... ... ..... ic query from the Bench, it was informed that there is no further follow-up action by way of suspension of the license or revocation of the license of the appellant. At this juncture, we find that this prohibition order as issued by the learned Commissioner is nothing but an administrative order issued by him against the CHA. On a specific query from the Bench, no provision was brought to our notice wherein an appeal lies against such a prohibition. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as non maintainable.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1096
... ...
... ... ..... al Excise, Shillong vs. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Guwahati). We heard these writ petitions along with that Reference. For the reasons given in C. Ex. Ref. No.1/2009, it must be held that Education Cess on goods is not exempted under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 8-7-1999 and that CENVAT credit on Education Cess can be utilised under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only towards payment of Education Cess. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1095
Whether the title and ownership of the goods had already passed to the Petitioner?
Whether when the entire quantity of coal was delivered to the Respondent No.2 for the purpose of transmission of the same to the Petitioner without reserving the right of disposal of the goods, the lien on the goods stood terminated in view of the provisions of Section 49(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1094
Whether the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to put forth its stand that the Central Government issued impugned Notifications/Orders without proper guidelines and affording opportunity to the parties concerned?
............
|
