|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 926 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1073 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate?
Whether a person under the purported cover of being an “agent” can represent large number of persons before the forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the ‘Act’) and the Rules made thereunder?
Whether somebody who is not a legal practitioner, can represent large number of parties before their forums thereby frustrating objects embodied in the Advocates Act?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1072 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty u/s 76 & 78 of the FA, 1994 - Service Tax has been paid immediately before the fact of liability was brought to the notice of the assessee - Section 73 of FA - Held that: - Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the FA, 1994 categorically states, after the payment of service tax and interest is made and the said information is furnished to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid. Therefore, authorities have no authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1071 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection 71A. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 6-3-2008 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed to consider the identical question of law raised in CEA 75/2007 as raised in this appeal and this appeal was also admitted for considering the said question of law framed in CEA 75/2007 which had been already admitted and when this case was posted for admission on 5-8-2009 said appeal CEA No. 75/2007 was disposed on 29-7-2011 2012 (25) S.T.R. 350 (Kar.) answering the substantial question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and following the reasoning assigned in the said judgment in this case also, we answer the substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and hold that the appeal is devoid of merit and pass the following order The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1068 - ITAT KOLKATA
TDS u/s 194C - default of assessee was non furnishing of form 15J alongwith form 15I - Held that:- Assessee did not submit form 15J by 30.06.2006 because he had not received form 15-I. He was of the view that 15-I was received subsequently when the assessee was confronted with the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The availability of form15-I, however, at the time of assessment proceedings is not doubted. Therefore, in view of decision in the case of Shri Vipin P. Mehta (2011 (5) TMI 503 - ITAT MUMBAI), Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance
-
2011 (8) TMI 1067 - ITAT DELHI
Undisclosed Cash Credits u/s 68 - Assessee has received fresh loans during the year from three of its Directors. The AO treated the majority of the loans as genuine but made the addition of the amounts which were deposited in cash in the bank account of the creditors -The assessee submitted an explanation to explain the credits in the accounts of the creditors, but AO dis-believed it - CIT(A) confirmed the addition - HELD THAT:- AO dis-believed part of the deposits which has been received by the assessee through the banking channel but there was cash deposit of similar amount in the accounts of the creditor on or around the date on which the assessee received the amount. Since the assessee has proved the identity and also creditworthiness of these lenders, the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source of the creditors.
There is no evidence on the record which could show that the deposits made in the books of account of the creditors were from the money belonging to the assessee itself. Similarly, the explanation about the source of deposit in the creditors account, if not found to be acceptable, then also the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. It may be subjective to the proceedings for inclusion of the amount as income of the depositors from the undisclosed sources or if they are found benami then the real owner can be brought to the tax - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Unexplained Cash Deposit - There was a cash deposits in the two bank accounts held by the assessee. The assessee submitted an explanation that the amount deposited in the bank accounts are received from the debtors/client and also cash withdrawals from the bank account of the company which have been accounted for in the books of account - CIT(A) considered them as unexplained cash deposits on the basis of small time gap between the withdrawals and corresponding to cash deposits - HELD THAT:- We hold that the assessee was maintaining books of account and the assessee has submitted an explanation that the deposits in the bank account were out of the cash withdrawals from the bank and cash in hand available with the assessee and also from the advances received from the clients entered into the books of account. The ITAT Delhi ‘A’ Bench in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. VERSUS BALDEV RAJ CHARLA AND OTHERS. [2008 (12) TMI 241 - ITAT DELHI-C],held as under simply because there was a time gap, the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected.
Assessee has to maintain margins with N.S.E. at short notice and for that ready cash in hand has to be maintained. Since the deposits are from the cash balance available to the assessee in its books of account, therefore, in our considered view, no addition is called for. The addition cannot be made or sustained on the basis that there was time gap between withdrawal and deposits. When cash balance is available in cash book maintained no addition can be made. In view of this factual position, we set aside the orders of the authorities - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Interest charged u/s 234D - The question involved was regarding the chargeability of interest u/s 234D in respect of assessment year 2003-04 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case of the assessee, the assessment year involved is 2003-04 under consideration before us, therefore, tax authorities were not justified in charging interest u/s 234D from the assessee and the same is liable to be deleted in view of the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 11 (1), NEW DELHI. VERSUS EKTA PROMOTERS (P.) LIMITED. [2008 (7) TMI 452 - ITAT DELHI-E]. We order accordingly. - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1066 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed after the proper officer is satisfied about the declaration of the exported goods and about the duty payment particulars, etc. 5. In the present case, as per the report of the Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 26-2-2009, the cargo was presented to the customs on 5-11-2008 for examination. The proper officer examined the goods on 5-11-2008, and let export order was passed by the proper officer on the same date itself. Inasmuch as on 5-11-2008, the quality of the rice was held to be falling under the category of Basmati Rice, the rate of duty applicable on the basmati rice as on 5-11-2008 would be the proper rate of duty. We find no infirmity in the views of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the relevant date for the purpose of applying the rate of duty would be 5-11-2008 and not 3-11-2008 when the shipping bills were presented. 6. In view of the above discussions, we find no merits in the appeal and reject the same. (Pronounced in the Court on 12-8-2011)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1065 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... #8377; 3,00,000/- to ₹ 2,00,000/- and penalty to ₹ 1,00,000/-. (f) In Appeal No. C/164/2010 redemption fine is reduced from ₹ 3,00,000/- to ₹ 2,00,000/- and penalty to ₹ 1,00,000/-. 11. Regarding the department’s appeals seeking for enhancement of redemption fine to the levels ordered by the original authority, the same do not deserve to be allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of original authority in confiscating the goods and imposing penalties. He has exercised his discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case to reduce the redemption fine. It is not the case of the department that the said power has been exercised arbitrarily or mechanically. Further, the appeals of the assessees have been disposed off, in some cases, reducing the redemption fines and penalties. Therefore the appeals of the department for enhancement of redemption fines and penalties are rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1064 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Enhancement of Redemption fine and penalty - import of restricted goods without valid import licence repeatedly - Digital Multifunctional print and copier machines - Held that: - On careful reading of the explanatory notes under the HSN, we find that the photocopiers are specifically arranged under the head of copying machines and the said head does not include the machines which are capable to perform two or more functions of printing copying or facsimile, etc. There is a clear cut identification and separate head for combination of printers, copying machines or facsimile machines in the HSN explanatory notes. In view of this, it is very clear that photocopier machines are understood as copying machines, while the imported goods fall separately under the category of combinations of printers, copying machines of facsimile machines. It is not in dispute in this case that the imported goods are combination of printers, copying machines and/or facsimile machines. Hence, the “digital multifunction print & copier machines” cannot be termed as photocopiers to attract the bar of Para 2.17 of the FTP.
As the adjudicating authority has found that the machines in question are capable of additional functions, such as printing, etc., when connected to a computer, although confiscation and penalty is to be sustained in the absence of any appeal by the importers against confiscation and penalty, no justification exists for enhancement in the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty - Further, there is no finding that the importers had made any payment over and above the invoice value and the value arrived at by the Chartered Engineer is only an estimated value and in his report in the case of imports made by M/s. Digitech Systems, M/s. S.S. Enterprises, M/s. Indicon Copier Services, it is stated that the subject goods are required to be modified/reconditioned for further use. He also stated that the estimated margin of profit varies between 20-25%, that the price of the second-hand goods varies depending upon the market conditions, demand, availability of spares, etc. All these are conditional factors to be kept in view while fixing quantum of fine and penalty and would justify reduction as done by the lower appellate authority.
Also, respondents are first time importers and not repeated offenders so as to justify the enhancement in fine and penalty.
Eenhancement in the quantum of fine and penalty not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1063 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... VS Srichakra Ltd., Madurai (w.r.t. O-I-A No. 185/06, dated 26-10-2006 passed by CCE (Appeals) Madurai) 2012 (276) E.L.T. 418 (G.O.I.) . In the said order it was held that rebate of duty is not admissible under Rule 18 of CER, 2002, when export goods are manufactured out of both, duty free raw materials procured under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), as well as duty paid raw material since such goods are required to be exported under bond in terms of Rule 19(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 after the amendment of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) vide Notification No. 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-2004. Government therefore, observes that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in extending benefit of rebate of duty under Rule 18 ibid in this case. As such, Government sets aside the impugned order-in-original and allow the revision application. The impugned order-in-original is thus restored. 13. The revision application succeeds in terms of above. 14. So ordered.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1062 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... it earlier. At any rate it is not brought out clearly that when he was dealing with the goods he had knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation under Central Excise laws. The fact that he received goods invoiced by M/s. Unique Industries through an employee of M/s. Guru Deshmesh Engineers and Traders is not sufficient evidence in this regard. If they became aware after, it is not an offence punishable under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. So we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 45. So the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected. 46. To sum up the appeals filed by M/s. Akal Engineers, M/s. Perfect Fasteners and M/s. Unique Industries are allowed by setting aside the penalty. The appeal filed by M/s. Guru Dashmesh Engineers and Traders, the appeal filed by M/s. Esteem Electrodes (P) Ltd. and the appeal filed by Revenue against Shri Rakesh Kumar are rejected. (Pronounced in the open Court on 12-8-2011)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1061 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - delay in obtaining the completion certificate - Held that:- Date that appear on the Architect's Completion certificate filed before the local authority is a relevant one. In the instant case, the said date is 25-3-2008 and the assessee filed requisite form before the local authorities intimating the completion of the project. The said certificate/ intimation was accepted by the local authority without any amendments or objections. Local authority has not raised any queries on the quality construction of the building or the completion of the same as per the plans approved by such authority.
Delay in obtaining the completion certificate on 10-10-2008 is certainly not attributable to the assessee and obtaining the said certificate before 31.3.2008 is beyond the control of the assessee. Assessee's job includes the completion of the building in accordance with the approved plans and intimation of the same to the local authority by way of filing the requisite Forms together with the Completion certificate given by the Architect, the specialist in the matter and the assessee has done his job scrupulously in this case. However, the local authority has neither objected to the said application of the assessee and the Architect by raising any objections nor accepted by issue of said completion certificate till 10.10.2008. Therefore, the delay in grant of the said certificate is certainly not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is not defaulter on this account and thus, the AO has erred in denying the deduction u/s 80IA(10)- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1060 - ITAT CHENNAI
Expenditure on replacement cost of yarn clearers - revenue or capital expenditure - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - the payment made to M/s.Infinite India (P) Ltd. was subject to TDS, being technical services - tds u/s 194J - requirements of provisions of section 36(1)(vii)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1059 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in terms of regulation 17 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 (for short, `the 1982 Regulations'), the appellate authority is required to accord personal hearing to the respondent in a departmental appeal?
Whether the order dated June 4, 2004 passed by the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the respondent under regulation 17 suffers from infirmity for want of reasons?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1058 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Expenditure on Ad Films - Revenue or Capital Expenditure? - Contention was expenditure incurred on ad film is to be treated as capital or revenue in nature. Revenue stated that while deciding the case, tribunal ignored the ratio of the judgment in Patel International Film Ltd - HELD THAT:- The assessee has placed reliance on the case of CIT VERSUS M/S. GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS WYETH LIMITED) [2009 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]; and on COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY I VERSUS PATEL INTERNATIONAL FILM LIMITED [1974 (7) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
The case of Patel Engineering was also referred to and discussed in CIT v Geoffrey Manners. The undermentioned observations of the Bombay High Court in CIT v Geoffrey Manners, with which we are in complete agreement and which distinguish the case of Patel International, would be suffice to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant being engaged in the business of stock broking and share transactions, the expenditure incurred on ad films by way of advertisements for promotion and marketing of its products, being on the ongoing business, would be of revenue in nature and thus allowable as revenue expenditure - Revenue Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1057 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... is also at liberty to furnish documents required under the amended section 194C(3) of the Act and claim benefit accordingly, if found eligible.” 7. Ongoing through the facts of the case before us, we find the case before us identical to the case of Shri J. Prashant Hegde. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the case may be remitted back to the file of ld. AO, who shall analyze the issue as per the direction given in the case of Shri J. Prashant Hegde mentioned supra and pass appropriate order as per law and merits. The assessee is at liberty to furnish any relevant documents required to defend its case. It is ordered accordingly. 8. With respect to levy of interest u/s. 234D of the Act, there cannot be any dispute as it is consequential being interest chargeable on excess refund. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1056 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Restoration of penalty and interest - CENVAT credit on material used of construction of office was the issue - The Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the said finding of waiver - Held that: - When once the Revenue has accepted the order passed by the adjudicating authority and not chosen to prefer any appeal before the CESTAT, it is not open for the Revenue, now to contend that the order passed by the appellate authority is erroneous - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1055 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ide the order dated 6-11-2008 and restore the appeals for disposal on merits. According to the learned Counsel, both Judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon in the common judgment dismissing the appeals are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence the said order should be set aside. 3. In our opinion, when an order is passed on the basis of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Revenue, it is not a case for setting aside that order as it would amount to setting aside the order passed on merits. 4. In that view of matter, we are not inclined to condone the delay as no purpose would be served. Accordingly, the Petitions are dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1054 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd not to this Hon’ble Court, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court which was rendered subsequent to filing of this appeal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise-I v. Abinandan Petro Pack Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T. 579 (Kar.) 2. In view of the above, as this appeal was filed prior to the judgment stated supra, we hold that following the reasons assigned in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court sated supra, this appeal is not maintainable before this Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the appellant to file appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1053 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , as working on the land recorded as agricultural land by itself cannot be treated to be service provided in relation to agriculture. There is no averment in the pleading nor there is any such stand taken by the petitioner that M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., was engaged in any agricultural operation or that the work performed by the petitioner was in furtherance to the activity for the purpose of agriculture. Be that as it may, we are not recording any positive findings and have considered the arguments only for the purposes to find out whether a case has been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the show-cause notice. It will be open to the petitioner to take all the grounds, which have been taken in this writ petition and any other grounds, which they may like to take in reply to the show-cause notice. Any observations made by us in this order shall not influence the competent authority to take a decision. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1052 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dment notification dated June 9, 2000 has been upheld but the said judgment does not help the respondent in the present case in view of the earlier order of the Division Bench in respect of the present petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to re-examine the petitioners' case in the light of the direction earlier issued by the Division Bench of this court in W.P. No. 3600 of 2002. Let this exercise be completed by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioners are found eligible, necessary benefit be extended to them. If the respondents find that the petitioners are not entitled to exemption, they will pass a reasoned speaking order and will duly communicate the same to the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P. No. 4688 of 2010.
............
|
