Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2010 2010 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 101 to 120 of 848 Records

• 2010 (10) TMI 1159
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of transaction value u/s 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act for inclusion of additional charges in assessable value.
  
  Summary:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI arose from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, confirming a demand against the appellants for collected amounts on account of freight and charges. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing transformers, had collected certain amounts from customers which were not disclosed at the time of assessment. The adjudicating authority held that these amounts should have been included in the assessable value of the final products. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld this decision, citing the definition of transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act.
  
  The departmental representative referred to a decision by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III v. Supreme Petrochem Ltd., emphasizing that transaction value includes any amount that the buyer is liable to pay in connection with the sale. The Larger Bench's decision highlighted the importance of transaction value in determining the assessable value of goods based on the terms of the sale contract between the seller and the buyer.
  
  Considering the facts of the case where the collected amounts were over and above the invoice price for freight and charges, the Tribunal found no fault with the lower authorities' decision to include these amounts in the assessable value. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the law laid down by the Larger Bench, affirming the inclusion of the additional charges in the assessable value as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1158
  
  Issues involved: Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 40(3) of FER Act, penalty imposition, retraction of confessional statements, false statement under Section 40 of FER Act.
  
  Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 40(3) of FER Act:
  The appeals were filed against an Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of Sections 8(1) and 40(3) of FER Act. The investigation revealed that foreign exchange and Indian currency were recovered from the appellants without a legitimate source being explained. The confessional statements of the appellants were retracted, but lacked substantial evidence to support the claim of coercion. The Supreme Court precedent emphasizes the burden of proof on the maker of the statement to establish any coercion, which was not fulfilled in this case. The retracted confessional statements were found to be voluntary and true based on corroborating evidence.
  
  False statement under Section 40 of FER Act:
  One of the appellants was charged for giving a false statement under Section 40 of the FER Act. The appellant's statement was contradicted by another individual, leading to the conclusion that a false statement was indeed given. The retraction of the false statement was considered an afterthought made under legal advice, lacking substantial evidence of coercion. The sequence of events, statements, and evidence provided corroboration to the initial statement, indicating its voluntary and truthful nature. The charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellants being held guilty and the penalty upheld.
  
  Conclusion:
  After careful consideration of the facts, evidence, and circumstances, it was determined that the charges against the appellants were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty amount imposed was deemed appropriate considering the gravity of the charges. The impugned order was confirmed and upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeals due to lack of merit. The pre-deposited amount was to be appropriated towards the penalty as per the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1157
  
  Issues:
  1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
  2. Ex parte adjudication order.
  3. Lack of communication from the Tribunal.
  4. Grounds for review of the order dated 1-6-2010.
  
  Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal:
  The review petition was filed against the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal due to a delay of over four years in filing the appeal. The petitioner argued that the Adjudication Order was passed ex parte, received in 2001, and not served properly. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions regarding the date of receipt of the Adjudication Order and reasons for the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to the delay and lack of sufficient justification provided by the appellant.
  
  Ex Parte Adjudication Order:
  The petitioner claimed that the Adjudication Order was received ex parte in 2001, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to disclose crucial information regarding the receipt of the order and the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the petitioner's statements and concluded that the order was passed after considering all aspects, including the delay issue.
  
  Lack of Communication from the Tribunal:
  The petitioner argued that there was a lack of communication from the Tribunal after a specific date, leading to confusion about the appeal status. The Tribunal refuted this claim, stating that the petitioner had a history of absenteeism in adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's delay in enquiring about the appeal and failure to provide reasons for the four-month gap contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
  
  Grounds for Review of the Order:
  The Tribunal highlighted that the order dated 1-6-2010 was not reviewable unless there was an apparent error on the face of the order. The Tribunal explained the limited grounds for review, such as errors in the record or the availability of new substantial evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that a review cannot be based on dissatisfaction with the reasons provided in the original order. The review petition was deemed not maintainable and was rejected based on the facts, evidence, and circumstances of the case.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay in filing, lack of proper justification, and discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions. The review petition was rejected as it did not meet the criteria for review, emphasizing the importance of providing accurate information and timely action in legal proceedings.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1156
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order directing refund of balance amount u/s Customs Act, 1962 & non-service of notice u/s 150 of the Act before auction sale.
  
  Issue 1 - Appeal against order directing refund:
  The appeal raised a grievance regarding the order directing the appellants to refund the balance of the amount due to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12 percent u/s Customs Act, 1962. The goods seized were ultimately confiscated by the authorities, auctioned, and the amount refunded to the petitioner, leading to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge directed the appellants to pay the balance of the price of the goods assessed at the time of seizure, along with interest at 12 percent. The High Court upheld the decision, finding no grounds to challenge the quantified amount or the grant of interest.
  
  Issue 2 - Non-service of notice before auction sale:
  Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates a notice to the alleged owner of goods before auction sale. In this case, no such notice was served on the respondent, depriving them of participating in the auction sale. The learned Single Judge rightly granted interest at 12 percent due to this failure to serve notice, ensuring the respondent's rights were protected. The appellants were criticized for burdening the Court with unnecessary litigation.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the order directing the refund of the balance amount with interest. The respondent was entitled to interest on the unpaid amount from the date of seizure of goods till the date of payment.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1155
  
  Issues:
  Petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C against order dated 26-4-2010 passed by learned ACMM regarding complaint case filed under Sections 135(1)(b) of Customs Act and 85(1) Gold (Control) Act in the year 1988.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order dated 26-4-2010 passed by the learned ACMM regarding a complaint case filed in 1988 under Sections 135(1)(b) of Customs Act and 85(1) Gold (Control) Act. The Trial Court had framed charges against the accused, which were later challenged in a revision petition before the learned ASJ. The accused then filed a petition before the High Court, which directed the ACMM to reconsider the case based on specific factors. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's statement had not been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and that allegations of duress in a statement were significant considerations.
  
  The learned ACMM, upon rehearing the case, discharged all accused persons in the absence of substantial evidence. The judgment emphasized the lack of a panch witness for the alleged recovery, absence of ownership proof of the vehicle from which gold was allegedly recovered, and doubts regarding the voluntariness of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The judgment noted the alleged torture on the accused by Customs officers and the circumstances casting doubt on the statements' veracity. It concluded that no conviction could be based on the available material, leading to the discharge of the accused.
  
  Upon reviewing the ACMM's order, the High Court found no infirmity and dismissed the petition, stating that there were no merits in the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence, voluntariness in statements, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision underscored the need for a robust legal process and the requirement for concrete proof to establish guilt in criminal cases.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1154
  

  Income from agricultural land - unexplained investment u/s 069 - delete the addition - In present case, AO did not accept the case that portion of the income representing agricultural income by way of lease and therefore, he added the said income. Secondly the assessee ha constructed a residential house and she had shown a total investment of ₹ 1,45,32,000/- including the land value. No accounts had been maintained. A reference was made to the Valuation Cell of the Income Tax Department to estimate the cost of construction of the said building. It was valued at ₹ 1,64,20,839/- excluding the land value. The differential amount in a sum of ₹ 23,20,599/- was treated as an unexplained investment and bought to tax u/s 069.

  agricultural income was shown in the returns, there was not specific mention about the income from agriculture by way of two of two sources. HELD THAT:- In those circumstances, this being purely a question of fact, when there is a concurrent finding by three fact finding authorities based on legal evidence, not case for interference is made out. In that view of the matter. He substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

  HELD THAT:- the facts of this case, when the assessee, though has not maintained the books of accounts, has declared the investment in residential house at ₹ 1,45,32,000/- as on 31.3.2004 in place like Sainagar, the Assessing authorities were not justified in relying on the District Valuation Officer’s report which was based on CPWD rates at ₹ 1,64,20,839/- and in adding ₹ 23,20,599/- as unexplained investment u/s 69, therefore, the said portion of the order is set aside and we delete the said addition. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.

  substantial question of law - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is not in dispute that the asessee withdrew sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 18.8.2003 and ₹ 2,00,000/- on 20.8.2003 from her savings account. She is an agriculturist and she had agricultural Income. Once she demonstrated that she was in possession of ₹ 7,00,000/- cash plus agricultural income on her hands, if after 40 days, a cash deposit is made to the extent of about ₹ 5,20,000/- towards loan account, it cannot be said that the source of the said deposit is not properly explained. Merely because there is a delay of 40 days from the date of withdrawal of the money from the bank account to the date of deposit in the loan account. Once money is shown to be in the account and withdrawn, what the asessee did with the money till it was actually deposited, is not the concern of the Department. As long as the source is explained and established and when the money is withdrawn from a savings bank account and paid to discharge loan by deposit in to a loan account, it is not possible to hold that the source is not explained. In that interregnum period, if the very same money is utilized from other purpose and thereafter, it is appropriated towards of a loan, that cannot be held against the assessee. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous and requires to be set aside. Therefore, the said substantial question of law is also held against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1153
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, citing a previous three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur v. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd. (2002). (2010 (10) TMI 1153 - SC)

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1152
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for addition to gross profit based on estimation.
  
  Summary:
  The assessee appealed against the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) by the AO on the addition made to the gross profit based on estimation. The CIT(A) sustained the penalty only on the addition of Rs. 16,20,937/-, as the ITAT allowed the set off of addition for bogus purchase against the GP addition. The ITAT confirmed the AO's finding that the books of accounts were unreliable due to bogus purchases. The ITAT upheld the AO's addition for bogus purchase but allowed the set off against the GP addition. The penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was upheld for the bogus purchases but not for the GP estimation. The AO was directed to compute the minimum penalty on the sum of Rs. 9,43,681/- for the bogus purchases. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
  
  In the case, the AO made two additions - one for low GP of Rs. 16,20,937/- and another for bogus purchase of Rs. 9,43,681/-. The CIT(A) deleted the low GP addition but confirmed the bogus purchase addition. The ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s finding on the GP addition, confirming the AO's decision. The ITAT upheld the AO's finding that the books were unreliable due to bogus purchases. The penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was deemed justified for the bogus purchases but not for the GP estimation. The AO was directed to calculate the penalty on the sum of Rs. 9,43,681/- for the bogus purchases. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1151
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding availing Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services provided in the factory for employees.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Bombay heard arguments from the Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant and the advocate for the respondent regarding the question of law related to availing Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services provided in the factory for employees. The issue was whether the respondent is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services as an input service credit despite it not falling under the definition of "input service" specified under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Court noted that the question raised in the appeal was covered by a previous decision and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that if the Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services is recovered from the workers/employees, the Excise Authorities can initiate proceedings accordingly. The appeal was disposed of with this direction.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1150
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Disallowance of bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act.
  2. Addition made on account of deemed income u/s 41(1) of the IT Act.
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of Bad Debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act:
  - The AO disallowed the sum on account of bad debt, contending that the conditions u/s 36(1)(vii) were not fulfilled.
  - Assessee argued that the amount written off as bad debt pertained to sales made to Gujarat Water & Sewerage Board, which remained unrecovered despite efforts.
  - CIT(A) noted the debt was over 3 years old and difficult to recover, thus allowing the claim based on the Supreme Court's decision in T. R. F. Ltd. Vs CIT 323 ITR 397.
  - ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the debt was written off as irrecoverable, entitling the assessee to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii).
  
  Issue 2: Addition on Account of Deemed Income u/s 41(1) of the IT Act:
  - AO made an addition u/s 41(1) of the IT Act, alleging cessation of liability regarding the purchase of building material.
  - Assessee contended that no benefit was obtained as the matter was under dispute and liability remained unsettled.
  - CIT(A) held that as long as the liability was not settled, there was no cessation of liability, thus deleting the addition.
  - ITAT supported CIT(A)'s decision, citing precedents from Madras High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing the necessity of a cessation of liability for section 41(1) to apply.
  - The ITAT dismissed the appeal, confirming that the assessee had not gained due to the alleged cessation of liability.
  
  Conclusion:
  - The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal on both grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the disallowance of bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) and the addition made on account of deemed income u/s 41(1) of the IT Act.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1149
  
  Issues involved: Winding up of the Respondent Company City Limouzines (India) Limited due to non-payment of monthly compensation to the Petitioner and allegations of financial irregularities and abandonment of registered office.
  
  Details of the judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Non-payment of monthly compensation
  The Petitioner entered into an Agreement with the Company for monthly compensation, which the Company failed to pay since August 2009. The Petitioner demanded payment through a statutory notice, but the Company did not respond. The Court found that an amount was due to the Petitioner along with interest, as agreed in the Agreement. The Company's inability to pay its debts was established, and it was deemed to have abandoned its registered office.
  
  Issue 2: Allegations of financial irregularities
  The Company was accused of duping investors and being indebted to them for several hundred crores. Directors were arrested for economic offences, and meetings with shareholders and creditors were pending. The Court noted that several economic offences were registered against the Directors, and the Company had abandoned its registered office without informing the Registrar of Companies.
  
  Issue 3: Appointment of Provisional Liquidator
  Considering the Company's inability to pay debts and the risk of asset dissipation, the Court appointed the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator of the Company. The Provisional Liquidator was tasked with taking charge of the Company's properties and records pending the final disposal of the Petition.
  
  The Court admitted the Company Petition and set a returnable date. The Petitioner was directed to advertise the Petition in local newspapers and deposit a specified amount towards publication charges. Failure to comply would result in dismissal for non-prosecution. The parties were instructed to act upon the Court's order accordingly.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1148
  
  Issues involved: Assessment of interest on Non-Performing Assets (NPA) u/s mercantile system of accounting.
  
  Summary:
  For the Assessment Year 2001-02, the respondent assessee declared a loss of &8377; 28,55,795. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that interest on NPA amounting to &8377; 19.57 lakhs was not recognized by the assessee. The AO contended that under the mercantile system of accounting, accrued interest on loans is taxable whether received or not. The assessee, being an NBFC, argued that interest on NPA cannot be treated as income until actually received, citing RBI guidelines under Section 45JA of RBI Act, 1934. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, and the ITAT upheld the decision. The Revenue challenged this before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
  
  The High Court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that RBI Directions do not impact the taxability of income under the IT Act. It highlighted the need for the AO to determine if interest income should be recognized based on real income theory, considering the uncertainty in collection. The AO should have assessed if the loan had become an NPA with no likelihood of interest accruing. The High Court set aside previous orders and remitted the case to the AO for re-examination in light of the Supreme Court's guidance.
  
  Therefore, the High Court directed a fresh assessment by the AO to determine the taxability of interest on NPA, considering the real income theory and RBI guidelines, as per the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1147
  
  The Supreme Court of India dismissed the special leave petition after condoning the delay. The citation is 2010 (10) TMI 1147 - SC.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1146
  
  Issues involved: Attempted smuggling of foreign currencies, absolute confiscation, penalty imposition.
  
  Attempted Smuggling of Foreign Currencies:
  On 02.08.03, DRI officers intercepted the appellant at the Aerobridge of the International airport, Chennai, bound for Singapore. While nothing was found in his hand baggage, US$ 1,92,150 and 97 Singapore dollars were seized from his checked-in baggage. Initially, the appellant admitted to carrying the foreign currency to smuggle out of India, later retracting the statement. Subsequent follow-up led to the recovery of additional foreign currencies from the flush tank of the toilet in his hotel room. The appellant confessed to keeping the foreign currencies in the flush tank. A Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.03 was issued, resulting in absolute confiscation of the foreign currencies and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner.
  
  Absolute Confiscation and Penalty Imposition:
  After hearing both sides, it was established that the appellant indeed attempted to smuggle the foreign currencies out of India, as admitted by him. The foreign currencies seized from both his baggage and the hotel room belonged to him and were intended for smuggling. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation and deemed the penal action against the appellant as sustainable. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the penalty imposed was reduced to Rs. Five lakhs. The appeal was partly allowed on these terms.
  

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1145
  
  Issues involved: Refund claim of duty paid on cement and steel by an NGO for construction of houses in Tsunami affected districts of Tamil Nadu; Challenge by Revenue regarding remand of refund claims by Commissioner (Appeals).
  
  Refund Claim of Duty Paid on Cement and Steel:
  The appellants, an NGO, sought a higher refund of duty paid on cement and steel used in construction of houses for Tsunami affected districts of Tamil Nadu, citing Notification No. 32/05. However, the Tribunal referred to its earlier order which clarified that the exemption for duty paid on cement and steel is limited to 6% of the cost of construction or Rs. 9000 per house, as specified in the Notification. The Tribunal upheld the decision to restrict the refund to the duty paid on cement and steel, as it did not exceed the prescribed limits.
  
  Revenue's Challenge on Remand of Refund Claims:
  The Revenue challenged the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for processing the NGO's refund claims based on submitted documents. The Revenue argued that post the amendment to Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to remand cases.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not contest the admissibility of the refund on merits. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed justified in instructing the Assistant Commissioner to evaluate the refund claims of the NGO based on the provided documentation and to grant refunds if found eligible. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1144
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Inclusion of sales tax and excise duty in total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC.
  2. Exclusion of consultancy fees from profits for deduction u/s 80HHC.
  3. Deduction u/s 80HHC on disclaimer certificate issued by an Export House.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Inclusion of Sales Tax and Excise Duty in Total Turnover for Deduction u/s 80HHC

  The Revenue contended that after the insertion of section 145A, the total turnover for calculating deduction u/s 80HHC should include excise duty and sales tax. However, the Tribunal observed that section 145A is applicable only for computing income chargeable under "Profits and Gains from business or profession" and does not affect the interpretation of total turnover for the purpose of section 80HHC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. clarified that total turnover in section 80HHC has a special meaning and does not include excise duty and sales tax. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal by the Revenue.

  Issue 2: Exclusion of Consultancy Fees from Profits for Deduction u/s 80HHC

  The Revenue argued that 90% of consultancy fees earned in foreign currency should be excluded from business profits for deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities did not consider whether the consultancy charges were connected with the export business of merchandise. The Tribunal held that if consultancy charges are inextricably linked with the export of goods, they form part of export turnover and are not covered by Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC. In the absence of full details, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

  Issue 3: Deduction u/s 80HHC on Disclaimer Certificate Issued by an Export House

  The Revenue disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee based on a disclaimer certificate issued by M/s. Clariant (India) Ltd., citing a loss on export of trading goods by the Export House. The Tribunal observed that sub-section (1A) of section 80HHC allows deduction to a supporting manufacturer based on profits derived from sales to an Export House, irrespective of the Export House's profit or loss on trading goods. The Tribunal found that the facts of the case required reconsideration, particularly whether the Export House ultimately showed a profit or loss in its return. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

  Conclusion:

  The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific issues remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1143
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Addition u/s 41(1) of IT Act.
  2. Addition on account of share application money u/s 68 of IT Act.
  3. Addition of notional value of interest on loan advanced.
  4. Partial disallowance out of telephone expenses, vehicle maintenance, and depreciation on cars.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Addition u/s 41(1) of IT Act:
  The issue in ground No. 2 pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 41(1) of IT Act. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,42,656/- and Rs. 45,900/- as remission/cessation of liability since the creditors did not confirm the balances. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. However, the Tribunal found that the difference in accounts was due to opening balances and not related to the current year. The assessee recognized the liability and did not waive it. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, allowing ground No. 2.
  
  2. Addition on account of share application money u/s 68 of IT Act:
  Ground No. 3 concerns the addition of Rs. 42,78,756/- as share application money received through private placing. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 68 of IT Act, citing the assessee's failure to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt Ltd, noted that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the subscribers. The Tribunal upheld the addition, dismissing ground No. 3.
  
  3. Addition of notional value of interest on loan advanced:
  Ground No. 4 involves the addition of Rs. 6.00 lakhs as notional interest on loans advanced for acquiring new assets. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the loans were for acquiring new assets for business expansion and upheld the disallowance, dismissing ground No. 4.
  
  4. Partial disallowance out of telephone expenses, vehicle maintenance, and depreciation on cars:
  Ground No. 5 addresses the partial disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- on account of personal use of directors, which the CIT(A) restricted to Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal found no merit in the disallowance, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure in entirety, thus allowing ground No. 5.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions u/s 41(1) and allowed the full deduction of telephone and vehicle expenses while upholding the additions u/s 68 and the disallowance of notional interest on loans.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1142
  

  CENVAT credit - capital goods - Plate/Plate Mill Plate, M.S. Angle/MST Angle, Angle, M.S. Beam, M.S. Channel, etc - Held that: - the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to avail of Modvat credit in respect of the above subject items - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1141
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Valuation of Imported Goods
  2. Refund Claim and Limitation Period
  3. Payment of Duty Under Protest
  
  Summary:
  
  Valuation of Imported Goods:
  The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of Intel Dot Stations, declaring the value at US $ 61 per piece. The assessing authority re-determined the value at US $ 85 per piece, which was later re-fixed by the Commissioner(Appeals) at US $ 75 per piece. The Tribunal, in its Final Order, upheld the appellants' declared value of US $ 61.
  
  Refund Claim and Limitation Period:
  Based on the Tribunal's decision, the appellants filed a refund claim for the excess duties paid. The refund claim was rejected by the respondent on the grounds that it was filed beyond the stipulated time limit of six months as laid down in Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this rejection, leading to the present appeal.
  
  Payment of Duty Under Protest:
  The appellants argued that the duty was paid under protest, as indicated by their appeal against the valuation. They cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI and other Tribunal decisions, asserting that filing an appeal itself amounts to payment under protest. The Tribunal agreed with this view, referencing similar cases such as Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the limitation period does not apply when duty is paid under protest.
  
  Judgment:
  The Tribunal found that the duty paid by the appellants was indeed under protest due to their successful challenge of the valuation. Consequently, the refund claim could not be denied on the grounds of being time-barred. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 1140
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2006-07.
  
  Issue 1 - Depreciation Disallowance:
  The appellant raised a ground of appeal regarding the disallowance of depreciation, citing non-consideration of settled case laws and CBDT circular. However, during the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not press this ground, leading to its rejection.
  
  Issue 2 - Addition of Interest Amount:
  The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 26,75,912, arguing that the amount credited as interest in the Profit & Loss Account was merely a book entry and not actually accrued or received. The appellant provided evidence including replies to the Assessing Officer, interest account details, and confirmations from relevant parties. The Departmental Representative opposed the appellant's submissions, highlighting that the auditors did not clarify the credit entry for interest and that the CIT(A) deemed the confirmation document unreliable. The Tribunal acknowledged the correctness of taxing the interest amount based on accounting entries but agreed with the appellant's alternative argument that only 1/6th of the interest amount related to the relevant assessment year should be taxed, directing the Assessing Officer accordingly.
  
  Issue 3 - Agricultural Income Addition:
  The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 under 'Other Sources' by reducing the agricultural income without valid reasons or verification of past records. The appellant's counsel pointed out that in the previous assessment year, the Assessing Officer had accepted higher agricultural income. The Departmental Representative supported the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal noted that in the prior year, the Assessing Officer had accepted a higher agricultural income declared by the appellant. Considering this and the appellant's ownership of 40 acres of land, the Tribunal found no justification for the additional Rs. 1,00,000 and thus allowed the appellant's appeal on this ground.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to tax only a portion of the interest amount and deleting the additional agricultural income, based on the facts and arguments presented during the proceedings.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 43