|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 709 Records
-
2010 (11) TMI 951 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... firmity in the direction of the CIT(A) to assess the income from unrecorded receipts in the hands of the firm M/s. Ahura Holdings. Consequently, there is no merit in the grounds raised in these cross appeals by the appellants in these individual partners’ cases. Accordingly, all these 14 appeals in these individual partners’ cases are dismissed. 39. To sum up, as far as appeals of the firm are concerned, while appeal ITA No.362/Hyd/2010 is dismissed, the appeals ITA Nos.363 to 366/Hyd/2010 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The cross appeals in the cases of individual partners for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and the two appeals filed by the individual partners alone for assessment year 2007-08, viz. ITA No.354/H/09, 583/H/2010, 355/H/2009, 584/H/2010, 356/H/2009, 585/H/2010, 357/H/2009, 358/H/2010, 580/H/2010, 359/H/2010, 581/H/2010, 360/H/2010, 582/H/2010 & 361/H/2010 are dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the court on 26.11.2010
-
2010 (11) TMI 950 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ions earlier. On 21/6/2010, the matter was adjourned as the appellant was not represented. On 2/7/2010, hearing on the application was adjourned on the request of the appellant. Today, when the matter was called out, we find that the appellant is not represented and there is no request for adjournment of the matter. 3. We have heard the ld. JDR who submits that the application deserves to be dismissed. 4. On a careful consideration of the case records, we find that the appellant is not apparently interested in pursuing the application. Hence, application is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, stay petition and appeal also get dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2010 (11) TMI 949 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... - and deleted the remaining addition of ₹ 5,15,000/-. 15. The Tribunal in the impugned order was of the opinion that so far as household expenses were concerned, both the parties having proceeded on estimate basis, the assessment made by the Commissioner (Appeals) seemed to be quite reasonable and accordingly sustained the same. Thus, both by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) had worked out the amount of household expenses on the basis of an estimate. In either case the addition is based upon estimate and as such, does not give rise to any question of law. Therefore, this ground of appeal also does not merit acceptance. 16. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to warrant interference. No question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less, a substantial question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 948 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay - Validity of impugned order - compounded levy scheme - Section 3A. ... ... ... ... ..... n the present appeals, no such scheme was in force. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (as it existed then) cannot be faulted. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
-
2010 (11) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial?
Whether husband treated his wife in the same way as she had been treated by her husband?
-
2010 (11) TMI 946 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Whether the goods were actually sold in Delhi or only transported through Delhi to reach another destination? - Held that: - The said inquiry cannot be carried out while dealing with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - we direct that the Value Added Tax officer under the Act shall conduct an inquiry on production of documents before him (which has been filed before this Court) and after affording an opportunity of hearing. The amount that has already been deposited before this Court be transferred to the Value Added Tax Authority - matter on remand.
-
2010 (11) TMI 945 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994. 6. Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Tajiander Pal, reported in (2003) 6 Tax Update Part 3 Page No. 84 held that these provisions are not mandatory and are directory in nature. Division Bench of this Court further held that if all the requisite documents are available at the time of checking of vehicle/goods, then intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. Both the appellate authorities have recorded a concurrent finding that there was no mens-rea on the part of the assessee, as all the required documents were available and tax had already been paid by the assessee, therefore intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. 7. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the concurrent finding recorded by both the appellate authorities so as to interfere with the same in this revision petition. 8. No question of law is involved in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
-
2010 (11) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the existing Chairman and Members of the Commission ought to be removed from the office on the alleged grounds of misbehaviour?
Whether there exist justifiable grounds for removal of the private respondents from their respective offices in terms of Article 317 (1) of the Constitution?
-
2010 (11) TMI 943 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ms aggregating to ₹ 1,07,98,905/- for the period from 22.1.1997 to 30.6.1997 are barred by unjust enrichment. The prayer in the Revenue s appeal is, therefore, granted and the appeal is allowed. 7. Appeal E/3108/06 filed by the Revenue is against another order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21.7.2006. The appellate authority allowed a claim for interest on an amount of duty refunded to the assessee (Rs 1,07,98,905/-). The Revenue has challenged the Appellate Commissioner’s order on the ground that the refund of duty itself is unsustainable. In this appeal, the Revenue has pointed out that the Appellate Commissioner’s order dated 12.5.2003 granting refund to the assessee is itself under challenge. 8. After hearing both sides, we allow this appeal as well inasmuch as we have already set aside the Appellate Commissioner’s order of refund of duty in an earlier part of this order. 9. All the appeals and the Cross Objection are accordingly disposed of.
-
2010 (11) TMI 942 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... to pass an appropriate assessment order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 3. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the impugned assessment order of the first respondent, dated 27.10.2010, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the first respondent to issue a fresh assessment order, in respect of the assessment year in question, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is no violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Whether Article 14 of the Constitution does not take away from the State or its instrumentality the power of classification, which to some degree is bound to produce some inequality?
-
2010 (11) TMI 940 - SC ORDER
Fabrication at site - Excisability - marketibility - dutiability - demand - Limitation - Held that:- Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 939 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bmission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, these writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. Nos. 8951 and 8952, 9275 and 9276 of 2005 are also dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 938 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner's case that the soyabean oil belonged to the Mantora. It was the duty of the Mantora to take the goods in its custody. This was done on 13.03.2006. Had the Mantora done it earlier, the vehicles could be released earlier. This, indicates the fault lies with the Mantora; 16. In our opinion, the question whether the Department was at all liable or not, can be decided only after considering the evidence on record and writ jurisdiction is not appropriate remedy for the same. A suit for damages is the appropriate remedy. CONCLUSIONS 17 Our conclusions are as follows (a) In circumstances of the case, the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate to determine as to who is responsible or the quantum of damage; (b) The petitioner may, if they are so advised, file suit for the recovery of the damages. In case, any such suit is filed, the same may be decided without being influenced by any observations in this judgment. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 937 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... pellant under the head "Site Preparation or Clearance Service" without allowing the benefit of Notification No. 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005 which granted exemption from the whole of Service Tax leviable on Site Formation and Clearance, etc. referred to in Section 65(105)(zzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. Prima facie, the benefit of exemption is available to the appellant as held by this bench in their earlier case. 2. Hence, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the dues adjudged against the appellants. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2010 (11) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the land belonging to appellant No.1 is exempted from acquisition in terms of clause (d) of notification dated 13.11.1959 was not decided in the first case and the appeal was dismissed mainly on the ground of delay and contumacious conduct of the appellants?
Whether the land belonging to appellant No.1 is Wakf property and is exempted from acquisition?
-
2010 (11) TMI 935 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... has regarded this undertaking as a small industrial unit by issuing a provisional certificate, but somehow the final certificate of registration could not be issued by the department, nevertheless, the assessee had always been regarded as an SSI unit by all the departments, including excise department. We find force in the arguments of the learned AR and considering the view already taken by the respective coordinate Bench, as stated above, we hereby hold that the assessee must not be denied the claim of deduction under Section 80IA merely on this technical ground. We hereby direct the AO to allow the claim as per the law.” Since the facts of the year under consideration are identical, we respectfully following the above decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case, direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee under Section 80IB in accordance with law. 5. In result, the assessees’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 26th November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 933 - ITAT DELHI
Renewal of Exemption u/s 80G - Charitable institution/Status - reason for declining such request is that the assessee has received income under the head ‘Advertisements and golf tournaments income’ and it has also incurred substantial expenditure on this activity only - HELD THAT:- The certificate granted to the assessee u/s 12A treating it as charitable institution is subsisting and has not been shown to have been withdrawn till date. If it is so, then, renewal of exemption u/s 80G(5) could not be denied to the assessee. Therefore, there are no justification in rejection of the claim of the assessee unless it is shown that the charitable status granted to the assessee by the certificate issued u/s 12A has been withdrawn.
The Ld. DIT (E) is directed to grant the renewal to the assessee u/s 80G - appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 932 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ted 2-6-98 declaring that they are clearing printed sheets and the other declaration filed on 23-11-98 is in respect of pouches of papers clearing classification under Heading 4817 of the Tariff. Both the declarations were acknowledged by the Revenue. As the appellants filed the necessary declaration therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable merely on the ground that the appellants had not claimed the classification in respect of printed duplex board sheets in the declaration. As the appellants filed necessary declaration as provided under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules declaring their product and claiming specific classification, therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable. Therefore, without going into the issue of classification, the demands are set aside on the ground of limitation. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2010 (11) TMI 931 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the period of dispute, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 49 & 50 of its judgment in case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International has held that when the goods are sold at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation including insurance charges from the place of removal to the place of delivery, even if charged on average basis, would be excludible. In view of settled legal position on this issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly allowed the deduction of equalised freight and we do not find any infirmity in the portion of the impugned order, permitting the deduction of equalised freight. 6. In view of the above discussion, while the portion of impugned order permitting deduction of equalised freight is upheld, the portion of the order permitting deduction of cost of packing is set aside and on this point, the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner is restored. The Revenue’s appeal is, thus, partly allowed.
............
|
