|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 5 lakhs and considering the value of the goods imported, of Rs. 4.19 crores, the fine cannot be said to be excessive at all. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of Rs. 1 lakh, the penalty is very nominal and liability to penalty is attracted once the goods are held liable to confiscation, whether there is any mens rea on the part of the appellant or not. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Bansal Industries 2007 (207) E.L.T. 346 (Mad.) held that the element of mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. This decision was based on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund 2006 (5) SCC 361 . 6. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner. Accordingly, we uphold the said order and dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. (Pronounced in Court on 20-12-2012)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1121
... ...
... ... ..... Company Limited (supra). In any case, the facts of the present case are vitally different. The observations of this Court in case of India Nippon Company Limited (supra) cannot be applied. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on a decision in the case of Cosmonaut Chemicals v. Union of India dated 30-7-2008 in Special Civil Application No. 12862 of 2004 2009 (233) E.L.T. 46 (Guj.) and connected petitions to contend that when the delay is caused due to reasons attributable to the Department, refund claim should not be dismissed. In the present case, admittedly, this was not the ground on which even the petitioner claimed filing of delayed refund beyond the period of limitation. 6. In the result, issue being identical as arisen in Special Civil Application No. 11990 of 2004, this petition is also disposed of relying on the above observations without giving separate reasons. Rule is discharged.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1120
Revision u/s 263 - Computation of deduction under Section 80-IB - Held that:- May be it is true that every claim, which is allowed to an assessee, need not be elaborately dealt with in an assessment order. However, the chain of events should show that there was application of mind atleast on the veracity of a claim made by the assessee. This is not seen here. It might be true that eligible undertaking need not maintain separate account for claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, but these were aspects, which were never verified by the Assessing Officer at the time of completing the assessment.
Therefore, of the opinion that the finding of DIT (International Taxation) that the assessment was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue cannot be faulted. We do not find any reason to interfere in such an order of DIT (International Taxation). Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1119
... ...
... ... ..... nd seek appropriate statutory remedies by way of rectification and/or revision as the case may be. Liberty granted. Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, along with pending application.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1118
... ...
... ... ..... vide his order date d29.8.2008 which is under challenge. 2. Primarily, when the aforesaid aspect is undisputable, and learned first appellate authority has not disposed the appeal on merit, in all fairness the appellant should get an opportunity of hearing appeal by the said authority. Therefore, matter is remitted back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant as expeditiously as possible in view of undisputed aspect of payment recorded by the Tribunal as aforesaid. We appreciate that the matter is nearly 5 years old and need not be kept pending at the first appellate stage upon remand. Therefore, the appellant is directed to make an application for fixing of date of hearing within 4 weeks of receipt of this order, and if such application is made, the authority shall fix the appropriate date for hearing and dispose the appeal within the reasonable time of completion of hearing. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1117
... ...
... ... ..... t of the Modvat credit was to withdraw the unintended benefit. When the petitioner and others who never enjoyed such unintended benefit having paid full duty, they could not have been classified along with others who had received such benefits. 16. In the result the impugned notification dated 3-5-1997 insofar as it limits the Modvat credit to the extent of amount of excise duty calculated at the rate of 10 ad valorem in cases where full excise duty at the rate of 15 was paid, is declared illegal and therefore, quashed. In other words, the application of clause (i) to the proviso shall be confined to only those cases where the manufacturers had purchased the inputs by paying the excise duty only at the rate of 10 during the relevant period. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits of refund of duty with statutory interest. We are informed that the petitioner had paid duty under protest at the relevant time. 17. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1116
... ...
... ... ..... horities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27 of Customs Act. The provision of section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 15 of said Drawback Rules are para material w.r.t. time limitation. As such the ratio of said Apex Court judgements are squarely applicable to this case. 10. Finally in reference to consideration of without prejudice submission of the respondent herein for the grant of extension under Rule 17 of the DBK Rules 1995, this authority is constrained to accede -a's. respondent has not produced any such extension granted by competent authority of Central Government. In the absence of any such extension/condonation of delay on record, Government holds this case matter as hit by time limitation. 11. Government therefore set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal for not being legal and restores the impugned Order-in-Original. 12. The Revision Application thus succeeds in terms of above 13. So, ordered.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1115
... ...
... ... ..... sequent year and the assessee has been following the mercantile system of accounting. Thus, it should be confirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and material available on record. The case law relied by the Counsel for the assessee was pertained to payment of insurance premium for Keyman’s Insurance policy which was due during the year F.Y. 04-05 relevant to A.Y. 05-06 as per terms and condition of the policy. But such conditions do not exist in case of the assessee. No evidence had advanced before any stage which showed that the assessee had to pay the insurance premium in advance. The assessee had followed the mercantile system of accounting. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). However, A.O. is directed to verify the expenses and allow the claim in A.Y. 06-07. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 07.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1114
... ...
... ... ..... shed the inaccurate particulars of income by claiming 80IB deduction on this income and concealing the particular of income u/s 271(1)(C) Thus, we have considered view that penalty on disallowance of 80IB deduction at ₹ 4,34,837/- A.Y. 04-05 is confirmed. Therefore, the AO is directed to calculate the penalty amount on ₹ 4,34,837/-. The remaining penalty in both the years on other additions are hereby deleted by considering the order of Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petrochemical and PWC (supra). The assessee had disclosed the particulars of deduction in profit and loss account as well as in books of account before the AO for which no inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Accordingly, the penalty levied for A.Y. 03-04 is deleted and penalty for 04-05 is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 03-04 is dismissed and for 04-05 is partly allowed Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2012 (12) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... ils. 21. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, did not object to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. 22. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, that no sufficient opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer on this issue, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to pass order afresh after giving due and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the details which are necessary for the adjudication of this issue. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... r a part thereof. If the civil works contract has been awarded and completed prior to 1st June, 2007 in that event even if the payment has been received after 1st June, 2007, there would not be any liability. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in the construction of building and is a civil contractor and is not liable to service tax in respect of all the works contracts,of civil nature, which have been completed by it prior to 1st June, 2007. However, if any works contract has been awarded prior to 1st June, 2007 and was still under completion on 1st June, 2007 or thereafter payment received after 1st June, 2007 would be liable to levy of service tax. Similar will be the position in respect of the works contract of civil nature awarded from 1st June, 2007 till 1st July, 2012. We, therefore, clarify the legal position. The petitioner may appear before the Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad and submit its explanation. The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1111
Unaccounted investment u/s 69 - Held that:- There was no basis for the Revenue to presume that the respondent had made the cash payment of ₹ 1.00 crore even though the registered sale deed dt.21- 08-2006 in respect of the above sale transaction disclosed only a cheque payment of ₹ 65.00 lakhs by the respondent. Even if the vendor K.Rajani Kumari admitted receipt of sale consideration of ₹ 1.40 crores, the respondent had not admitted payment of ₹ 1.65 crores and in the sworn statement only stated that she was not aware of actual consideration paid for the purchase of the property as the transaction was negotiated by her brothers. It held that there was no document or material to show that the respondent actually paid ₹ 1.65 crores for the purchase of the property and the Revenue had drawn inferences based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1110
The case of petitioner is that since, there is no order for clearance qua this consignment, the Commissioner should have deliberated with respect to the said consignment as well - Held that: - the Commissioner of Customs is directed to deliberate with respect to whether or not clearance ought to be made qua the consignment covered under bill of entry no.3431758 dated 06.05.2011 and thereafter pass an appropriate order, as deemed fit, in accordance with the law - petition disposed off.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1109
... ...
... ... ..... ne the person on the basis of whose statement the adverse inference was drawn against these assessees. The shares were purchased through independent share brokers. Copy of their accounts is placed on record. The share certificates were issued to the assessees. Keeping in mind all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of view that the addition made and sustained, is not justified as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because without providing copy of statement or allowing for cross-examination of the person on the basis of whose statement, addition has been made in the hands of these persons. Accordingly, I delete the addition of ₹ 63,000/- and ₹ 52,500/- in the case of both the assesses, respectively. 10. Since I have allowed the grounds on merit, therefore, I am not inclined to dispose of the legal grounds at this stage. 11. In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of Dec.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... e years are also placed on record and they have offered the receipts in their profit and loss account and due tax has been paid. Therefore, I feel that disallowance made by the AO, which is confirmed by the CIT(A), is not justified. The Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the assessee for immediately two years. The same services are rendered, therefore, for this reason also, disallowance is not justified. 8. It is also a matter of fact that there is huge loss shown by the assessee in earlier two years, which has been accepted by the department also. If those losses are brought forward then during the year under consideration also, there is a loss. It shows that the assessee is not showing any expenses on account of commission fee for reducing the tax liability. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I delete the disallowance. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of Dec.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1107
... ...
... ... ..... 43-549/2011; to be read as dated 24.02.2011 in S.TA. Nos.556- 557/2011; to be read as dated 26.02.2011 in S.T.A. Nos.558- 561/2011; to be read as dated 23.02.2011 in S.T.A. Nos.562- 567/2011, 568-573/2011; to be read as dated 28.02.2 011 in S.T.A. No.576/2011; to be read as dated 23.02.2011 in S.T. A. No.587- 590/2011; to be read as dated 26.02.2011 in S.T.A. Nos.591-597/2011; and to be read as dated 24.02.2011 in S.T.A. Nos.598- 599/2011, which are at page nos. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 respectively. We have perused the impugned orders in the said appeals. The said orders disclose the dates as sought to be corrected in the application. Therefore, the error that has crept i n the final order in these appeals in respect of the dates deserves to be corrected as prayed for in the application. Accordingly, the dates of the orders mentioned at page nos.2 to 8 and 9 be corrected as the dates as mentioned in this order at the respective place. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... o to the same party. In this case, it is proved that a payment have been gone to the payee only. In our opinion, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and no interference is called for in his order on this issue. Accordingly, the relevant Grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. C.O.No. 91/PN/2011 Ground No.1 6. The Ld. Counsel fairly conceded that the Cross Objection is only to support the order of the Ld CIT(A). We also find that the assessee has not raised any grievance against the order or part of the order of Ld CIT(A), hence, the Cross Objection is infructuous. Accordingly, the Ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1040/PN/2011 7. The Ld Counsel submits that he is not pressing the appeal and he want to withdraw the same. The Ld. D.R. has no objection. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 8. In the result, both the appeals as well as the Cross Objection are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 28th December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1105
... ...
... ... ..... reason to 4. As regards questions B & E are concerned, counsel for the revenue states that similar questions raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.972 of 2009 has been rejected by this Court on 5th March, 2012. Hence question B & E cannot be entertained. 5. As regards questions C & D are concerned, counsel for the revenue states that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decision in the assessee's own case for assessment year AY 1986-87 and the said decision has been accepted. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain questions C & D. 6. As regards question F is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that similar question raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.1123 of 2009 has been rejected by this Court on 5th March, 2012. Hence question F cannot be entertained. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1104
... ...
... ... ..... iginal characteristics of corrugated sheets. Therefore, there is no scope to take a different view than what has been stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as confirmed by the Tribunal. Such determination came to be made by both the authorities based on the facts placed before them and with reference to which, we do not find any serious legal lacuna, there is no scope to interfere with the same, inasmuch as there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved. " 14. Since all the conditions laid down under the relevant provisions have been complied with, therefore, we are of the view that the action of the authorities below in not allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 801B is unwarranted and uncalled for. As such, while accepting the appeal of the assessee, we direct to grant deduction u/s 801B of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 15. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 17.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1103
... ...
... ... ..... hat the excise duty forms part of the turnover and therefore it has to be included while valuing the closing stock. This principle does not admit of any doubt. But on the facts of the present case, it has no application for the simple reason that the Tribunal has found that the value of opening stock of raw material was disclosed after excluding the value of the excise duty and, therefore, the assessee was justified in not including the amount of excise duty while valuing the closing stock of raw materials. 5. The Tribunal was of the view that if the value of the excise duty has to be included in the closing stock then the value of excise duty has also to be included in the opening stock and in that event there would be no difference in the result of the value of the opening and closing stock. 6. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal and do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
............
|
