|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 681 Records
-
2009 (6) TMI 1007 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sales tax benefits - package scheme - eligibility certificate - Circular no.2 of 1998 dated 17.1.1998 - Certificate of Entitlement dated 16.1.2001 - Held that: - from 01.12.2000 onwards the production to the extent of 78.95% of the total production shall be apportioned as production of a Unit in Expansion relevant for this Entitlement Certificate. The Entitlement Certificate is based on the ratio of investments for prorata computation, the benefits shall be available till the time period or the monetary ceiling whichever gets exhausted early. The production to the extent of 21.05% shall be apportioned to the Existing Unit. Corresponding to this production at 21.05% when the sales takes place the liability for payment of taxes shall be discharged by making payment of taxes into Govt. Treasury and the same shall be admitted in returns furnished thereafter. The same proportion is available for procuring raw-material without payment of taxes to suppliers on finishing declarations in respect of Expansion Unit.
The Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax could not impose the conditions as per paras 4 and 5 of the Trade Circular dated 17.1.1998 and the above referred conditions in the Entitlement Certificate and, therefore, to that extent the said Circular and the conditions in the Certificate of Entitlement are liable to be set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1006 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... realisation of entire demand may be directed during pendency of appeal. He draws our attention to page-186. This particular paragraph shows that the Appellants without having machine have not manufactured the goods but perpetuated the offence making paper transaction. Therefore this perpetuation does not deserve any sympathy. 2. Heard Revenue. By a prima facie look to page 31 of the order-in-original (Page-186) of appeal folder, that does not convince us to direct waiver of pre-deposit. Apart from Settlement Commission s order, we find Revenue has a prima facie case speaking against the Appellant. Therefore following the ratio laid down in the case of Benera Valves Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1986 (204) ELT 513 (SC), we dismiss both the stay application of the appellant to protect the interest of Revenue. The appellants are required to make compliance by 8th July 2009 making pre-deposit of the entire demand within four weeks from today. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (6) TMI 1005 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the department holding, inter alia, that the percentage of breakage was reasonable and duty involved was, also, very meagre. The Tribunal, therefore, extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the company. We do not think that, in the facts the circumstances of the case, this appeal involves any substantial question of law requiring interference by this Court. The appeal, therefore, is summarily dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the connected application for stay, also, stands dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities
-
2009 (6) TMI 1004 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re is no case for the petitioner that the property in question is not a secured asset. The only contention is that though it is a secured asset, it is 'an agricultural land' and hence is excluded from the purview of the SARFAESI Act, as provided under Section 31 (i) of the Act. This is a matter which is to be looked into by the appropriate forum under the Act and not by the Magistrate, who is only vested with limited jurisdiction, to provide necessary assistance to take over the physical possession of the property, if it is a secured asset. This Court finds support in this regard, from the decisions rendered by this Court, as reported in Sindhu v. State of Kerala 2008 (2) KLT 736 and Muhamrmd Asharef v. Union of India 2008 (4) KLT 1). 8. In the above circumstances, there is absolutely no jurisdictional error or infirmity on the part of the concerned Magistrate while passing Exts.P7 and P8 and hence interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1003 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ar under Section 8 of the said Act. 16. As per the Clause 20.01 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the licensee is entitled to collect belated payment only on the amount due and payable to the licensee namely consumption charges. As the Electricity Tax is not the amount due and payable to the licensee and it is payable only to the Government, the licensee, the respondent herein, has no right to collect the surcharge on the belated payment of Electricity Tax and therefore, the claim of the respondent of a sum of ₹ 2,34,308/- being the belated payment of surcharge for the non payment of E-Tax on time, cannot be sustained and the respondent is not entitled to levy any surcharge on the E-Tax. 17. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the demand of the respondent in collecting the B.P.S.C. on the belated payment of arrears on E-Tax of ₹ 2,34,308/- alone is set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs
-
2009 (6) TMI 1002 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e included in the cost of production. On this basis, it was held that outdoor catering services used for supply of food in the factory canteen fell within the ambit of ‘input service’ under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and, therefore, Cenvat credit of the tax paid on such service was admissible to the manufacturer. In the present case, it is not the contention of the appellant that the respondent was not liable to maintain a canteen in their factory under the Factories Act or that the expenses of supply of food in such canteen did not form part of the cost of production of excisable goods in the factory during the period of dispute. In the circumstances, this case is covered by the Larger Bench decision. Accordingly, the order of the lower appellate authority granting the benefit of Cenvat credit to the assessee in respect of outdoor catering service for the period of dispute is sustained and this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (6) TMI 1001 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sing jurisdiction under section 263, would in such a case be merely a difference of opinion and hence not amenable to the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. in view of Supreme Court decision in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) as also later decision in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area over 1000 Sq. ft. as aforesaid and in respect of which the assessee would not entitled to deduction. 24. No submissions were made as regards 14A disallowance and therefore CIT order in setting aside the assessment to that extent is upheld. 25. In the result the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12.6.2009
-
2009 (6) TMI 1000 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... her mining rights are intangible assets has neither been examined by the assessing officer nor by the ld. CIT (Appeals). We are, therefore, of the considered view that this matter should be restored to the file of the assessing officer with the directions to verify the date of acquisition of mining rights and examine the case whether the mining rights are covered under intangible assets, as specified in old Appendix 1 applicable for assessment year 1988-89 to 2002-03. As regards the alternative claim of the assessee as revenue expenditure, this issue has also not been examined by either of the authorities. We, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee whether expenditure incurred on acquisition of mining rights is revenue expenditure or capital in nature. 49. In the result, the all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 25.06.2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 999 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. NGC Network Asia LLC reported in (2009) 222 CTR (Bom) 86. In the light of that there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are therefore dismissed with costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 998 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 4,476/- has been confirmed and equal amount of penalty has been imposed. 2. Taking note of the fact that full amount of service tax demanded has already been paid and also in view the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate that the Tribunal in the case of CCE Rajkot vs. Sunhill Ceramics Pvt. Limited 2008 (9) STR 530 (Tri.- Ahmd.) held that service receiver can avail the abatement even in the absence of declaration, we allow the stay petition unconditionally and waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty imposed, during the pendency of appeal. Dictated and Pronounced in the Court.
-
2009 (6) TMI 997 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Production of documents under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Held that: - One cannot hold that the litigation has to be indefinitely postponed for implementing the final decision. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record; nor any valid reasons for the non-production of the documents at an early stage as well. No sufficient reason is shown to receive the documents under Order 47 of the CPC - the review petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 996 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Pat Sanstha Ltd. C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. Mr.P.C.Tripathi i/b.Raj Darak ., Mr.R.Asokan ., Ms.Sandhya Chavan i/b. Suresh Kumar ., Ms.Sandhya Chavan i/b. Suresh Kumar . Mr.Ashokan . Mr.R.Ashokan for the appellant. Ms.P.Karande i/b.Rajesh Shah ., Mr.A.K.Jasani ., Mr.A.K.Jasani ., Mr.B.V.Jhaveri ., Mr.A.K.Jasani ., Mr.S.G.Lakhani ., Mr.A.K.Jasani ., Ms.P.Kanade i/b.Rajesh Shah ., Mr.Nilay D.Sheth a/w.Sanjay Sawant ., Mr.Jitendra Singh ., Mr.A.K.Jasani ., Mr.R.Ashokan ., Ms.Usha Dalal ., Mr.A.K.Jasani ., Mr. A.K.Jasani for the respondent. ORDER Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if any, and serve all unserved respondents within four weeks from today. Hamdast allowed. In addition to hamdast service, private service by R.P.A.D./Speed Post is permitted. Failure on the part of the appellant to remove office objections and/or to serve unserved respondents, appeals shall, accordingly, stand dismissed against the unserved respondents without reference to the Court.
-
2009 (6) TMI 995 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and stands concluded by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Juned Bilal Memon as reported in 2008 (221) ELT 45 (Tri-LB). 2. Learned advocate also submits that Hon ble Supreme Court had also considered this issue in M/s Virlon Textiles Mills as reported in 2007 (211) ELT 353 (S.C.). There are several other decisions of the Tribunal subsequent to the decision of Larger Bench on the same issue in favour of other 100 EOUs. Since the issue is no longer res-integra and stands decided in favour of the appellant, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (6) TMI 994 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Production capacity based duty ... ... ... ... ..... one of the three applications, the appellant had made a claim that no speaking order was passed by the Commissioner. If the stand of the appellants that Section 3A is no longer in existence and thereof matter cannot be decided now is accepted, the position would be that the earlier order fixing the APC becomes final and consequently the Dy. Commissioner orders passed confirming the duty based on the APC also becomes final. In view of the fact that the benefit claimed by the appellant in terms of the Supreme Court order is being allowed, we are sure the appellants would gracefully accept the decision and discharge the duty liability with interest as required in the law. 8. emsp In view of the above discussions, appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to fix the APC on the basis of actual production with effect from 01.6.1998 and also workout the differential duty. In these circumstances no penalty can be imposed on the appellants. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (6) TMI 993 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... n to entertain the same. Accordingly, the request of the appellant is rejected with liberty to move an application for this request before the Hon rsquo ble President of this Tribunal preferably within two months of the receipt of this order. If the appellant failed to move an application for transfer of the appeal to Ahmedabad Bench before the Hon rsquo ble President within the given time, in that event, this appeal will be heard on merits by this Bench. The appellant is also directed to file a copy of the said application before the registry of this Bench (if any). (Pronounced in Court on 29-6-2009)
-
2009 (6) TMI 992 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee is that against these loans it has not provided any security. It can take loans at any point of time and can repay at any point of time. Had the loans been taken from the bank or any other financial institution it was required to complete a lot of paper formalities and it can repay the amount according to the conditions enumerated in the agreement. It was also supposed to give security for the amounts. We also find that in the past, interest was paid 24 per cent. This year assessee has itself reduced the payment of interest to 18 per cent. Taking into consideration these facts and the difficulties in obtaining loan from the bank or the financial institution, if assessee has paid a little higher rate of interest then it would not be considered that it was paid in violation of s. 40A(2) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the disallowance. o p /o p 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p
-
2009 (6) TMI 991 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... S. Atwal vs. CIT referred supra are directly applicable to the facts of the issue on hand. 15. In essence, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this count is assailed and that of the AO restored. ITA No 449 16. In this appeal, the assessee has raised five grounds. However, the crux of the issue is that the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act for all the four properties, in stead of allowing exemption for only one property No. 16 by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order which is in dispute. 17. At the outset, we would like to point out that in Revenue's appeal supra, we have decided the issue in favour of Revenue thereby the assessee is NOT entitled for exemption u/s 54 of the Act for all the four properties including that of No. 16 property for which the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed relief in the impugned order. It is ordered accordingly. 18. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is allowed the the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 19.6.2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 990 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty u/s 114 (iii) on exporter, shipping line and CHA - quantum of -
-
2009 (6) TMI 989 - ITAT, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nditure was factually incurred on tax free receipts by identifying such expenditure. The AO has to decide in objective terms whether any direct/indirect expense is relatable to earning the exempt income and if so to determine the extent of such expense on a proper basis. 13. Thus, in our view, the present matter needs to be remitted to the AO to record his satisfaction/dis-satisfaction u/s 14A(2)(supra). The correctness of the explanation of the assessee and the extent of the expenditure in relation to the assessee's income not includible in the total income under the Act shall be examined by the AO. We order accordingly. 14. As noted at the commencement of this order, the facts in both these appeals are mutatis mutandis, identical. Therefore, our above observations shall apply, mutatis mutandis to ITA No.581(Del)09 also. 15. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 988 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sions of the Act by the Authorised Officer, such searches are invalid and illegal. No search was conducted against the assessee as the the premises occupied by the assessee were not entered upon and searched by the Authorised Officer. Considering the factual aspect which is based on the appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed in limini for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
........
|
