Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2006 2006 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 341 to 360 of 489 Records

• 2006 (10) TMI 157 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Settlement - Immunity from prosecution - Compounding of offence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Committee on Criminal Justice System Reforms under the chairmanship of Dr. (Justice) V.S. Malimath, formerly Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court who endorsed the recommendations of the Law Commission. The amendment was introduced in August, 2003 but has been enacted as a law only in June, 2006. The Customs (Compounding of Offence) Rules, 2005 appear to have been framed keeping in view the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction of plea bargaining as well as the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Mittal to the effect that settlement procedures are intended to see that protracted proceedings before the authorities or in courts are avoided by resorting to settlement of cases. Consequently, the interpretation of rules of settlement, such as the Rules with which we are concerned with, need to be liberally construed and resort to a challenge to a decision taken by the Compounding Authority should not be made as a matter or rule but as an exception.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 156 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lakhs which was a condition for re-hearing of the matter by the Commissioner. 2. Mr. Y.P. Narula, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently submits that the Petitioner had succeeded in stalling recovery proceedings for over five years and, therefore, the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs should be further increased. We find it difficult to accede to this contention for the simple reason that, inexplicably, the Respondents have not assailed the impugned Order of the CEGAT. 3. Having heard the matter in detail we restore the Writ Petition. We -enlarge time by seven days for the Petitioner to comply with the impugned Order. We restrain the Respondents from pursuing any steps in distress during this period of seven days. We clarify that if the amount is not deposited within the aforementioned seven days from today the Respondents shall be free to pursue whatever steps they deem expedient. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of. All pending Applications also stand disposed of.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Writ petition

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e in law. 7. Having regard to the said facts, I am of the view that instead of admitting and keeping the writ petitions pending for years together, the same can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by directing the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai to dispose of the stay applications one way or the other on merits or pass orders on the main appeals themselves. 8. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai is directed to dispose of the stay applications or the main appeals at an early date. Till such orders are passed either on the stay applications or on the main appeals, whichever is earlier, the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners shall not be invoked. But, at the same time, the petitioners are directed to keep the bank guarantees alive till orders are passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 9. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the above MPS are dismissed.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P and W.V.M.P. stand closed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 12944 of 2005, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the Final Order No. 283/2005, dated 1-3-2005, passed by the first-respondent and to direct the first-respondent to take up on its file Appeal No. E/225 of 2002 and to hear the appeal, giving sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned, and to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P and W.V.M.P are closed.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 153 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
  

  Writ jurisdiction - Scope of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... The proceedings before the adjudication authority may be stayed with until the cross examination is completed and all the documents supplied. 4. From such an application moved by the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners are interested in delaying the proceedings and are seeking directions to control the day to day proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer which does not fall within the jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5 .After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that comprehensive directions have already been issued and the consequence of their compliance/ non-compliance is also evident therefrom. This application seems to be an attempt to either seek review of the earlier order passed by this Court or to delay the proceedings. Accordingly, finding no merit, we dismiss the application. 6. At this stage, counsels for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application. Ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 152 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Refund - Unjust enrichment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... em which had been accepted by the Officers it is abundantly clear that duty burden of customs duty has not been passed on. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs did not accept this statement of the petitioner and made the following endorsement below the statement They are asked to produce the refund annexure and their evidence from their (Claimants) records. 9.Thereafter, the Assistant Collector passed a detailed order dated 27-11-1991 rejecting the petitioner s application for refund. In the light of the above findings of fact by the Assistant Collector of Customs and in the absence of any material produced by the petitioner to show to the contrary, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to produce the evidence contemplated under Section 27(1) of the Act read with Section 27(2) thereof. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order dated 27-11-1991 of the Assistant Collector of Customs. 10.For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 151 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Reference to High Court - Limitation - Condonation of delay

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... torate of Agriculture, Jaipur Government of Rajasthan even while reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. 16. We could dispose of this application by directing the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal ( CESTAT ) to refer to the above question of law to this Court for being answered in terms of Section 130A of the Act. However, since we have examined the matter at length we are inclined to answer the said question ourselves, in the affirmative, thus avoiding further loss of time in sending the matter to the CESTAT for its again being referred to us. This course commends itself to us in the peculiar facts of the present case. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 19-9-2001 passed by the CEGAT. The matter is remanded to the CESTAT for a rehearing of the applicant s appeal. The CESTAT will dispose of the appeal on merits and passed a reasoned order after hearing the parties. 17. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Completion of an assessment proceedings whether is a sine qua non for issuance of notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?

  Held that:- Where provisional duty is levied in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 9B, final assessment is contemplated under Sub-Rule (5) thereof by reason of which the duty provisionally assessed shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed and in the event, the duty provisionally assessed falls short of or is in excess of the duty finally assessed, the assessee will pay the deficiency or will be entitled to a refund, as the case may be. Ultimately, thus, the liability of the assessee would depend upon the undertaking of exercises by the assessing officer to complete the assessment proceeding as contemplated under the Rules.

  On a plain reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal was correct in its finding that the impugned show cause notices were illegal. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether cheap garments were being exported by grossly misdeclaring the description and heavily over-invoicing the value under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB Scheme)?

  Held that:- The Tribunal, in our opinion, should have considered the matter from another angle, namely, as to whether Respondents have violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation or not. As regards, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that Respondents had not over-valued the goods, inter alia, on the ground that no expert opinion regarding the value of the export goods had been adduced, the Tribunal did not advert to the materials which had been brought on records during investigation, whereupon the Commissioner relied upon.

  The impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration thereof afresh.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 147 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, is applicable in relation to a public servant?

  When does a prosecution start?

  Whether the offences enumerated under section 95 (iii) are excluded from immunity in terms of section 91 of the Act?

  Held that:- In the instant case, resorting to any device or camouflage has not been alleged. It is also not a case that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be said to have any application, although linked with an offence under section 136 of the Customs Act.

  The High Court has not held that the offences alleged against the respondents are so inextricably connected that they cannot be separated so much so that in the event it be held that private parties cannot be proceeded with at all, the case against public servants, would invariably fail.

  In this case also public interest is involved as interpretation of the provisions of the Act was in question. Yet again there cannot be any equality in illegality.

  We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly.

  The High Court, however, did not go into the merits of the matter. It proceeded on the basis that the continuation of the prosecution as against the respondents was unsustainable in law. Although prosecution as against the respondents herein may be held to be maintainable, in our opinion, they are entitled to contend that even if the materials brought on record are given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, no case has been made out as against them.

  The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside with the aforementioned observations.

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI [LB]
  

  Penalty - Rule 209A - when goods not available for confiscation - Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Meaning of Any person for the purpose of penalty - held that - for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the person must have dealt with the excisable goods with knowledge that they are liable for confiscation. In a given situation, where an assessee is only issuing invoices wherein there is no movement of the goods, they cannot be visited with penalty under Rule 209A - In the eyes of law, the corporate entity being a person would be held responsible for the act of the natural persons. But in order to punish the guilty individuals, the veil of corporate entity had to be lifted to understand the correct picture. Precisely for these reasons only the provisions of Rule 209A came in to statute, in order to punish the guilty acting behind the veil of corporation/company - penalty can not imposed on corporates under rule 209 / Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 145 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Rejection of books of account – change in gross profit rate - assessee-appellant is doing business of trading in pan masala and other connected commodities. The assessee has furnished return of income showing ₹ 4,48,280 as taxable income along with the audit report. - the Assessing Officer noticed that there is fall in the gross profit rate in the business as a whole as compared to the gross profit rate shown by the assessee during the last assessment year 1991-92. The assessee has shown in the previous year gross profit rate of 4.63 per cent, by taking entire business as a whole, but this year he has shown the gross profit rate of 2.38 per cent. only. With this premise, he decided to reject the books of account and asked for explanation of the assessee about the fall in the gross profit rate - Held that - Mere deviation in the gross profit rate cannot be a ground for the rejecting the books of account, and entering the realm of estimate and guesswork. Lower gross profit rate shown in the books of account during the current year and fall in the gross profit rate was justified

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 144 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  “Block period” means the period of 10 years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted. The “previous year” further includes the period in which the search was conducted up to the date of the commencement of search - in block assessment total undisclosed income relating to block period ending up to date of search to be charged to tax – however in absence of evidence, undisclosed income is to be taken as shown in profit and loss account rather than as declared in return – in respect of genuineness of a gift, amount credited as capital of firm and not having been received as gift, no enquiry conducted as to source of amount and how it had been credited – amount can be added as unexplained investment

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 143 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Dealer in vehicles – amount received under “post warranty service contract” - credit balance in the post-warranty service scheme - plea of the assessee that the amount had not been transferred to the P/L A/c, did not make a difference on principle. If no liability accrued during the year, the amount could not be kept in suspense account. The same has to be treated as income - Considering the terms of the contract with the purchasers of the vehicle, any amount remaining credited in the account for more than three years from the date of credit has to be treated as income for the year thereafter and any refund claimed by any purchaser thereafter will be a permissible deduction during that relevant year

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 142 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Cessation of liability - Amounts collected as sales tax and Central sales tax were later found to be in excess of the amounts payable - assessee transferred the said amounts to the suspense account but did not credit the same to the profit and loss account - hold that the amount collected towards sales tax which remained unpaid and unpayable to the Department, which was also not refunded to the customers, was liable to be treated as income in the hands of the assessee under section 41(1) of the Act. As and when the amount is refunded to the customers, the same may be claimed as deduction by the assessee

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 141 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation of firm determined after assessment of partner – Whether Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to set off depreciation allowed in the case of the firm by taking recourse to S. 155 - partner is entitled to set off his share of unabsorbed depreciation in A.Y. 1992-93 – for A.Y. 1993-94 to 1995-96, the assessee would not be entitled to claim any benefit for the reason that in the subsequent years, the firm ceased to exist. In case, the firm itself is not in existence and the unabsorbed depreciation is not carried forward in the hands of the firm, there was no question of apportionment thereof in the hands of the partners

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 140 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 31,433 paid as fine for belated payment of excise duty instalment – though termed as fine, the payment was not in the nature of punishment - the payment was in effect intended to compensate the loss on account of delay in making the payment and was not by way of penalty for breach of law - where the amount paid is in the nature of compensation, the same will be allowable

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 139 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the marketing of agricultural products - interest received on loans advanced to its members - held that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of interest income received on advances made to his customers for the purpose of deduction under Section 80P

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 138 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Notice for re-opening assessment – reason given to issue notice was that that during the course of assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2002-03, it came to light that claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was erroneous as the assessee was not registered under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 & was not a member of clearing house & was providing facilities to non-members – notice is not based merely on change of opinion but also on the subsequent judgment of the SC – notice is valid

  ---

• 2006 (10) TMI 137 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Addition towards investment in construction of Air Pollution Control Device (chimney) – even if availability of bricks with the assessee was taken into account investment in the construction of chimney was not proved – no basis for income surrendered by assessee - Assessing Officer found difference in the investment as estimated at the time of survey & at the time of assessment - Tribunal was right in taking into account the above difference & not considering surrendered amount

  ---

1 ....141516171819202122........ 25