|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 919 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 996
Issues involved: Appeal and cross objection against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Coimbatore regarding the allowability of expenses incurred by the assessee for replacement of machinery for the Assessment Year 2005-06.
Grievance of the Revenue: The Revenue contended that the expenses incurred by the assessee for replacement of machinery should be disallowed as they were considered of capital nature by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the expenses based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. and CIT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd.
Assessee's Position: The assessee, engaged in manufacturing of yarn, claimed expenses for replacement of machinery which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was successful in its appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
Arguments before the Tribunal: The ld. D.R. argued that the law on the point had been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills Ltd., emphasizing the need to consider any increase in the installed capacity of production. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. referred to a subsequent decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Textiles, which remitted a similar issue back to the Jurisdictional High Court for fresh consideration based on specific tests laid down in previous cases.
Tribunal's Decision: After considering the submissions and relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal noted the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indra Cotton Mills Ltd., which emphasized the need to review the claim of the assessee in light of various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Outcome: The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, while the cross objection of the assessee was dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 995
Cenvat/Modvat – Documents for availing credit - Rule 9(2) of the CER (sic) that, credit shall not be denied on the ground that the document does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these Rules if the document gives details of payment of duty or Service Tax, Description of the Goods, Assessable Value, Name and Address of the factory of the receiver - the decision in the case of CCE. & C., VADODARA-II Versus EUPEC-WELSPUN PIPE COATINGS INDIA LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 994
Issues involved: Challenge to order by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding interpretation of Section 35F and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for penalty reduction and setting aside of Appellate Commissioner's order on penalty reduction.
The High Court considered the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order regarding the interpretation of Section 35F and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had determined that if the duty is paid within 30 days of the order, the penalty under Section 11AC would be 25% of the duty, increasing to 100% if paid later. The High Court noted that a previous decision had settled the issue, and since the Tribunal's decision aligned with that precedent, it found no legal flaw in the Tribunal's order warranting interference.
The High Court, after reviewing the circumstances and absence of any substantial question of law, dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was in line with established legal principles and previous High Court decisions, specifically referencing a case involving Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II v. Mahalaxmi Industry.
-
2010 (7) TMI 993
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unaccounted share application money u/s 68.
2. Deletion of addition on account of excessive claim of burning loss.
Summary:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unaccounted Share Application Money u/s 68:
The first issue pertains to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- made on account of unaccounted share application money u/s 68. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show-cause notice regarding the introduction of fresh share capital accepted in cash. The assessee provided a detailed compilation including share application money with relevant evidence. However, the AO noted discrepancies such as the applicants being low-paid, illiterate agriculturists, and the money being received in cash. Despite affidavits and explanations, the AO rejected the evidence and taxed the amount u/s 68, citing failure to establish identity, capacity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.
The CIT(A) examined the facts and allowed the claim, noting that the assessee submitted share application forms, identity cards, affidavits, and proof of agricultural income or salary/business income from shareholders. The CIT(A) referenced decisions from the Guwahati High Court and ITAT Ahmedabad, concluding that the shareholders were identified and confirmed their investments, thus deleting the addition.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, referencing Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. and CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., and dismissed the Revenue's ground.
2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Excessive Claim of Burning Loss:
The second issue involves the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,51,70,869/- made on account of excessive burning loss. The AO noted a burning loss of 45.80% as per the Audit Report, which was reworked by the assessee to 38.39%. The AO deemed this excessive and disallowed 30.80%, allowing only 15% burning loss.
The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the raw material was Aluminium Scrap with significant impurities, justifying the burning loss. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee maintained complete quantitative records and excise records, and the Excise Authorities accepted the Audit Report. The CIT(A) also considered a comparable case with a burning loss of 36.46%, concluding that the AO's estimation of 15% was baseless and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the AO disturbed the book results without rejecting the books of account. The assessee maintained quantitative records and the RG-1 Register as per Excise Department requirements. The Tribunal acknowledged the impurities in the raw material and the varying burning loss percentages in subsequent years. It concluded that the AO's estimation was not justified but also noted inconsistencies in the assessee's book results. To maintain consistency and account for potential pilferage, the Tribunal deemed it fair to allow a burning loss of 30%, resulting in a partial disallowance of 8.39%.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the deletion of the addition on account of unaccounted share application money and partially allowing the addition on account of excessive burning loss.
-
2010 (7) TMI 992
N/N 66/2008-Cus, dated 14.05.2008- Whether export duty can be levied on goods supplied from Domestic Tariff Area to Special Economic Zone? - the decision in the case of Essar Steel Ltd. Versus Union of India [2009 (11) TMI 141 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that levy of export duty on goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to the Special Economic Zone is not justified - Held that: - there is no merit in the present appeal and is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 991
Allowing rebate for Securities Transaction Tax (STT) under section 88E in a case where an assessee is also exigible to tax u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- it is clear that the provision of sections 87 and 88A to 88E also apply after the total income is computed u/s 115JB and since the assessee’s total income includes the income from the taxable Securities Transactions, the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the amount equal to the STT paid by him in respect of the taxable Securities Transactions entered into in the course of business during the previous year. The assessee’s appeal is thus allowed and the AO is directed to give rebate u/s 88E for the STT paid by the assessee.
In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 990
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
2. Difference in cost of construction as determined by the DVO and shown by the assessee.
3. Rejection of books of account u/s 145(2) of the IT Act.
4. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated by the AO.
Summary:
1. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act:
The appeals by the assessee challenge the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench found that the assessee did not furnish the correct cost actually debited in the books of account and adopted the value on a lump sum basis without filing the account of the project along with required bills and vouchers for payment. The AO imposed penalties for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).
2. Difference in cost of construction as determined by the DVO and shown by the assessee:
For the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000, significant additions were made due to the difference in the cost of construction shown by the assessee and that determined by the DVO. The ITAT sustained part of the additions on the basis of the DVO's report, which led to the initiation of penalty proceedings.
3. Rejection of books of account u/s 145(2) of the IT Act:
The books of account were held to be defective and rejected by applying the provisions of section 145(2) of the IT Act. The AO noted that the books were not reliable as the correct cost was not debited, and no evidence was filed for labor payment.
4. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated by the AO:
The assessee argued that the penalty was not justified as the additions were made on an estimate basis and there was no material to prove the filing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The AO, however, held that it was a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing particulars of income. The ITAT noted that mere revision of income to a higher figure by the AO does not automatically warrant an inference of concealment of income. The report of the DVO based on his opinion against the opinion of the assessee does not lead to an inference of concealment. The ITAT also observed that the AO did not give a clear-cut finding whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of income, thus invalidating the penalty proceedings.
Conclusion:
The ITAT set aside the orders of the authorities below and canceled the penalty, allowing the appeals of the assessee.
-
2010 (7) TMI 989
Levy of penalty - Food and beverages provided to passengers on board the trains - whether amounts to sale or provision of service - natural justice - Held that: - petitioners have not been given an opportunity of hearing prior to such levy - the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before the penalty orders could have been passed - the penalty orders set aside in these writ petitions and matter remitted to the Value Added Tax Officer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2010 (7) TMI 988
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions made on account of Royalty.
2. Allowance of equipment hire charges as 'rent'.
3. Confirmation of additions made in the assessment order under the head Royalty & Rent.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Additions Made on Account of Royalty
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made on account of Royalty, observing that the actual issue was not the allowability of the royalty payment but its reasonableness. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer failed to establish what should be the reasonable amount of royalty and concluded that the findings of the Assessing Officer were without support. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee regarding the Royalty payment, stating, "no one would transfer user rights of name and other benefits without charging adequate consideration." However, the Tribunal found that the payment of royalty to SSSPL, a company in which members of the assessee society had substantial interest, violated the provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) of the IT Act. The Tribunal held that the funds of the assessee society were diverted for the benefit of SSSPL, which amounted to personal benefits for the members. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the ground of the Revenue, stating, "When there is violation of provisions u/s 13(1)(c), then the assessing officer has to withdraw the exemption u/s 11."
Issue 2: Allowance of Equipment Hire Charges as 'Rent'
The CIT(A) allowed the equipment hire charges as 'rent', noting that the Assessing Officer had overlooked the fact of equipment hire. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating, "we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue."
Issue 3: Confirmation of Additions Made in the Assessment Order under the Head Royalty & Rent
The CIT(A) deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of the rent paid by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Tribunal, however, upheld the disallowance of excess rent paid of Rs. 4,80,000 for the assessment year 1998-99 but allowed the payment of rent for other years, noting that the reduction in rent for the assessment year 2002-03 was due to reduced utilization area. The Tribunal stated, "CIT(A) justified in allowing the payment of rent."
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1998-99 and allowed the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03, thereby disallowing the royalty payments and upholding the disallowance of excess rent for the assessment year 1998-99 while allowing the rent payments for other years.
-
2010 (7) TMI 987
Issues involved: Appeal against Ld. CIT(A) order for asstt. year 2006-07, Disallowance of bad debt claim, Disallowance of telephone expenses, Disallowance of club expenses.
Bad Debt Claim Disallowance: The AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 11,52,901/- claimed as bad debt by the assessee, stating that the assessee failed to prove that these debts had actually become bad. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, citing the change in provisions u/s 36(i)(vii) post 1.4.89. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to various case laws including CIT Vs. Autometers Ltd. and Suresh Gaggal vs. ITO to support the decision. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that after 1.4.89, writing off the debt as irrecoverable is sufficient, and there is no need for demonstrative proof that the debts have actually become bad.
Telephone Expenses Disallowance: The AO disallowed Rs. 50,000/- out of the total telephone expenses of Rs. 20,15,082/-, suspecting personal use of the facility. Ld. CIT(A) overturned this disallowance, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. vs. CIT. The Tribunal agreed with Ld. CIT(A), stating that as the assessee is a company, no disallowance for personal use can be made.
Club Expenses Disallowance: A sum of Rs. 3,897/- paid to Wheeler's club for an employee director was disallowed by the AO, claiming it as personal expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) reversed this disallowance, considering the nature of payment. The Tribunal upheld Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, citing the judgment in CIT Vs. Nestle India, where it was held that payment made as club membership fees is allowable business expenditure.
Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, regarding the bad debt claim, telephone expenses, and club expenses.
-
2010 (7) TMI 986
The appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Surat, for assessment year 2004-05 was dismissed by ITAT Ahmedabad as the assessee was not traceable and did not provide a proper address. The appeal stands dismissed unless correct address is provided for further consideration.
-
2010 (7) TMI 985
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint.
2. Legitimacy of the respondent's simultaneous enrollment in two courses.
3. Validity of the Notification dated 16.3.1998 concerning the respondent's eligibility.
4. The respondent's entitlement to the B.Ed. degree and the applicability of consumer protection laws.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint:
The appellant contended that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the refusal to award the B.Ed. degree was within its jurisdiction and not a consumer service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission, however, held that education by educational institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Act. The Supreme Court, referencing the Bihar School Examination Board case, concluded that the Board is not a service provider, and the student is not a consumer. Thus, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
2. Legitimacy of the respondent's simultaneous enrollment in two courses:
The respondent pursued an M.A. in Political Science and simultaneously applied for a B.Ed. (correspondence course) without disclosing the former. This violated Clause 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination, which prohibits simultaneous enrollment in two courses. The respondent was informed to choose one course, and she opted for the M.A. course. The Supreme Court upheld that the appellant was correct in withholding the B.Ed. degree as the respondent's simultaneous enrollment was against the rules.
3. Validity of the Notification dated 16.3.1998 concerning the respondent's eligibility:
The Notification dated 16.3.1998 granted a last chance to students who had not completed their courses within the prescribed period. The respondent applied under this Notification, appeared, and passed the B.Ed. examination. However, the Supreme Court found that the Notification was not intended for candidates like the respondent who had violated Clause 17(b). The appellant's action to correct this discrepancy was justified, and the respondent could not claim estoppel against a statutory provision.
4. The respondent's entitlement to the B.Ed. degree and the applicability of consumer protection laws:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent's participation in the B.Ed. examination, despite being allowed erroneously, did not confer any right to the degree. The court reiterated that rules and regulations cannot be defeated due to an administrative error. The National Commission's reliance on the Bangalore Water Supply case was misplaced as the respondent was not a consumer, and the appellant was not rendering a service. The Supreme Court concluded that the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint and awarding relief by the District Forum and National Commission was not in conformity with the law.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the District Forum and National Commission were set aside. The Supreme Court clarified that statutory provisions must be implemented correctly and cannot be overridden by judicial directions. The respondent's claim was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
2010 (7) TMI 984
CENVAT credit - Air/Rail ticket booking - Insurance/Mediclaim/Contractors policy - Vehicle maintenance service - Security services - Held that: - relying on various decisions, credit on all services allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 983
Valuation- Transit Risk Insurance- Appellant engaged in manufacture of Sheet Glass falling under Chapter 70.02 of the First Schedule to CETA, 1985 - the decision in the case of GUJARAT BOROSIL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT-II [2009 (12) TMI 379 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] contested, where it was held that discount passed on by way of issue of credit note was admissible payment - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 982
Revisional jurisdiction of the Government of India - section 35 EE of the Central excise Act, 1944 - rejection of rebate claim - Held that:- In the instant case, exporter-respondent has exported the machine on which the duty has already been paid by them and it was accepted by the Revenue. Under the circumstances, mere technical lapse on the part of the respondent No.1 in not obtaining signature of the manufacturer on ARE1 cannot result in refusing them the benefit of the rebate claims set up by them, which has now been granted to them by the Commissioner (Appeals) - the petition filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Revisional Authority (Govt. of India), is without any substance and the same is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 981
Schemes of MODVAT and CENVAT credit - Held that: - In view of the decision of this Court in Vikram Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2006 (1) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Special Leave Petition is dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2010 (7) TMI 980
Validity of proceedings u/s 21 - inter-State sales through Form C, which were not fount genuine - Held that: - there was sufficient material on record for the assessing authority to form a belief of escaped assessment and to initiate the proceeding under section 21 of the Act. The initiation of proceeding under section 21 are accordingly upheld - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2010 (7) TMI 979
Import of various types of bearings - denial of benefit of N/N. 40/2006-Cus., - According to the Revenue, a co-relation of technical characteristics, quality and specification is required to be established in respect of bearings sought to be imported that the bearings were actually used in the resultant product - Whether the Tribunal is justified in granting the benefit of N/N. 40/2006-Cus., when the Respondent failed to satisfy the conditions of the Notification as well as para 4.55.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy? - Held that: - specifications provided in the DFIA authorisation have to be considered as sufficient for the customs purposes since the specifications are based on goods exported under a shipping bill. Therefore the responsibility to ensure that exporter gives a proper declaration while making exports in the shipping bill lies on both customs as well as DGFT authorities and having missed the bus at the time of export, it may not be correct to insist on specifications from a transferee of DIFA - Revenue was unable to point out from any of the documents available on record that the import was not in accordance with the licence conditions or the specifications provided therein - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 978
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including belated payment of Provident Fund account, non-business nature of certain expenses, deletion of additions on personal and non-business expenses, and addition of unexplained creditors.
Belated Payment of Provident Fund Account:
The appeal addressed the addition of Rs. 1,10,606 on account of belated payment of Provident Fund account. The decision was influenced by the Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of CIT Vs. P.M.Electronics Ltd., where it was established that contributions to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return are allowable as deductions. The judgment considered the retrospective application of amendments to Section 43B, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
Non-Business Nature of Expenses:
The second ground of the appeal dealt with additions made on expenses deemed non-business in nature. The judgment upheld the decision of the CIT(A) based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Sayaji Iron & Eng. Co. Ltd., emphasizing that a company, as a distinct entity, cannot have personal expenses.
Deletion of Personal and Non-Business Expenses:
The third ground focused on the deletion of additions related to personal and non-business expenses. The decision was supported by the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, where it was concluded that the company's nature as a distinct entity precludes personal expenses, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
Addition of Unexplained Creditors:
The final ground addressed the addition of Rs. 12,91,246 as unexplained creditors. The judgment highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish the genuineness of such credits. However, the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. was cited to emphasize that the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the debt, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, with the judgment emphasizing legal precedents and interpretations to support the decisions on each issue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
