|| New User || My profile || My Book Marks || SMS Services || Annual Subscription || Lost Password ||
Stay
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Refund claim denied - period of limitation - cause of action arose only on 15/11/06, when they paid for the second time as a result of audit objection - refund claim is withing period - Tri Rejection of Refund claim – appellant filed under protest letter on 7.1.1987. - after two days they filed six nos. classification lists - thus, the under protest letter has no effect in the eye of law - Tri An educational qualification recognized by law will not cease to be recognized by law merely because for practicing in the field to which the qualification relates, a further examination held by a body regulating that field of practice is to be taken. - HC Fulfillment of export obligation – it is not open to the customs authorities to presume that extension of the LOP would be granted by the Development Commissioner to facilitate evasion of duty. - HC Merely because the CIT is having a different view, the same would not entitle him to initiate revision proceedings u/s 263, if the view taken by the assessing officer is one of the possible views. - Tri Repayment of capital balance in cash would not attract the provisions of sec. 269T since it does not constitute loan or deposit. - Tri Penalty u/s 271E - violation of sec. 269T - the interest amount and the principal amount were paid in two different occasions - each amoount less then Rs. 20,000 - No penalty - Tri Disallowance under section 14A required finding of incurring of expenditure and where it was found that for earning exempted income no expenditure had been incurred, disallowance under section 14A could not stand. - Tri Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of TDS - If the element of income cannot be established, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked - Tri Gift of immovable property - assessee's brothers and mother have gifted their 1/8th undivided share - very heavy burden lies on the department to prove that it is not the real one - Tri Addition on account of negative stock - The quantitative details as submitted duly explained that there was no negative stock in any of the month. - Tri Rate of tax on the sale of Copper Wire Bars and Copper Cathods - whether would be charged and retained @ 4% or 1% - chargeable at 1%. - HC Appeal u/s 483 – modification sought by the appellant is against the fabric of the Scheme and in the domain of modifications of the Scheme and not of modification for working of the Scheme. - non-compliance of Section 2(19AA), would not render the Scheme unworkable. - HC Since the Director of the appellant-company was actively involved in the day to day activity of the appellant-company penalty on him under Rule 26 has been correctly imposed. - Tri In absence of direct or indirect involvement of the Managing Director in the clandestine removal of the goods no personal penalty under Rule 26 is imposable on him. - Tri Cenvat Credit denied - galvanization does not amount to the manufacture - The duty paid on the G.P. Coils etc., is more than Cenvat Credit taken and needs to be adjusted against the demand of the Cenvat Credit. - Tri Extended period of limitation - in cases of intention to evade duty relevant date for computation of extended period for show cause is the date of knowledge - Tri Rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidences on record. - NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of value - Tri    Left Stop Right

Please login.

Only paid members can access this page.

User Login
Username  
Password  
 
Stay sign in
 
 
 
New User / Registeration
Forget Password - Click here to retrieve your Password

 

1961 (3) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ram Bux Chaturbhuj and Another Versus State of Rajasthan and Others  

-
............fied in the notification". As said above betel leaves are not within the word "vegetables" and are therefore taxable. There is no discrimination between persons similarly placed. By making a distinction between persons selling betel leaves and those selling vegetables no infringement of Article 14 is established. As it is a valid fee it cannot be said that it is an infringement of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.   We therefore dismiss these petitions with costs. One hearing fee.   Petitions dismissed.   *Since reported as Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola and Another [1961] 12 S.T.C. 286.

 
what is new what is new
Advanced Search
Subscription
Annual Subscription
Consultancy Services
Modes of Payment
Updates
Highlights
Recent Case Laws
Recent Notifications
Recent Circulars
Event Calendar
Articles
News / Feeds
Experts
Newsletters
FAQ - Newsletters
Archive - Newsletters
Communication
Contact - Us
Feedback / Suggestion
Other Options
Compute Income Tax
Refer to Friend
Important Links
Advertise with us
Quick Links: || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Forms || Case Laws || Members ||
| Home | | About us | | Contact us | | Refer us | | Feed Back | | Disclaimer | | Terms of Use | | Privacy Policy | | Discussion Forum |
Go To Top

Go to Mobile Website

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.