|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 899 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 946
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: 2010 (8) TMI 946 - SC
Judges: D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu
Decision: Delay condoned, special leave petition dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 945
Issues involved: Appeal against demand on account of shortage of inputs below 0.5% during manufacturing process.
Issue 1: Shortage of inputs and reversal of input credit
The appellant filed an appeal along with a stay application regarding a demand against them due to shortage of inputs during their manufacturing process, which was below 0.5%. The appellant's representative argued that although sometimes the shortage accrued was between 0.5% to 0.6%, they had reversed the input credit in excess of 0.5%. It was pointed out that a previous Tribunal order in the appellant's own case had allowed input credit up to 0.5% on shortages of inputs during manufacturing.
Decision: The Tribunal, after considering the appellant's previous case where it was held that input credit is available up to 0.5% on shortages of inputs during manufacturing, ruled in favor of the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (8) TMI 944
Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous order of CIT(A).
2. Non-production of paddy suppliers during assessment.
3. Incorrect consideration of suppliers as farmers by CIT(A).
4. Documentation aimed at avoiding section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act.
5. Any other grounds raised during the hearing.
Summary:
1. Erroneous order of CIT(A):
The revenue contended that the order of the CIT(A) was erroneous both in law and on facts. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings were consistent with the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2002-03, where similar issues were raised and resolved in favor of the assessee.
2. Non-production of paddy suppliers during assessment:
The revenue argued that the assessee should have produced the suppliers of paddy during the assessment proceedings with supporting documents. The Tribunal noted that the delay in furnishing information was attributable to the assessee, but subsequent evidence produced was not to be taken at face value. The Tribunal, however, found that the payments made to commission agents, who were representatives of farmers, were covered by the exemption under clause-f of rule 6DD of the I.T. rules.
3. Incorrect consideration of suppliers as farmers by CIT(A):
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) incorrectly considered all suppliers as farmers despite the assessee's inability to distinguish between farmers and agents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Tribunal's previous ruling that the commission agents were representatives of the farmers and thus covered by the exemption under clause-f of rule 6DD.
4. Documentation aimed at avoiding section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act:
The revenue contended that the documentation provided by the assessee was aimed at avoiding the provisions of section 40A(3). The Tribunal, however, found that the payments to commission agents were genuine and covered by the exemption under clause-f of rule 6DD, as previously determined for A.Y. 2002-03.
5. Any other grounds raised during the hearing:
No additional grounds were raised that altered the Tribunal's decision.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity and dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its previous ruling for A.Y. 2002-03, where payments to commission agents were deemed exempt under clause-f of rule 6DD. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 19.8.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 943
Whether Section 148 of the CPC, in our opinion, clearly reserves in favour of the Court the power to enlarge the time required for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure?
Whether extension can be legally granted in a case like the one at hand where non making of the deposit would result in a civil consequence like a decree of eviction against the appellant?
Whether the appellant has made out a case for extension?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, extension of time is justified for making of the deposit, and if so, on what terms.
-
2010 (8) TMI 942
... ...
... ... ..... Nijjar, JJ. ORDER Appeal admitted.
-
2010 (8) TMI 941
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 142-A of the Act.
3. Formation of belief of escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Act.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Notice u/s 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 24.6.2006 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04. The notice was issued to reopen the assessment on the ground of escaped assessment due to lesser investment shown in house construction compared to the valuation report.
2. Reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 142-A:
The assessing authority referred the matter to the Valuation Officer during the course of the assessment proceeding to ascertain the quantum of investment in the building construction. The Valuation Officer's report, received after the assessment order, estimated the investment higher than disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge the reference to the Valuation Officer at any stage, thus it was not open to challenge it at this stage.
3. Formation of Belief of Escaped Assessment u/s 147:
The court examined whether the valuation report constituted material to form a belief of escaped assessment. The valuation report showed a significant difference between the disclosed investment (Rs. 3,00,000/-) and the estimated investment (Rs. 5,05,300/-). The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of "reason to believe" in Section 147, emphasizing that it requires cause or justification but not conclusive proof of escapement of income. The court concluded that the valuation report provided tangible material to form the belief of escaped assessment, thus justifying the reopening of the assessment.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the valuation report constituted material to form a belief of escaped assessment. The petitioner was allowed to contest the estimate of the investment in the reassessment proceeding by adducing necessary evidence. There was no order as to cost.
-
2010 (8) TMI 940
Issues Involved: Appeals against imposition of redemption fine, confirmation of penalties u/s 114(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Redemption Fine on Exporter:
The exporter, represented by Shri. S.N. Kantawala, argued that redemption fine cannot be imposed as the goods were not available for export under any bond. Citing the case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CCE & C, Nasik, it was contended that in such cases, redemption fine is not imposable. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the goods were loaded without obtaining Let Export Order (LEO) and ruled in favor of the exporter, allowing the appeal.
Penalty on Customs House Agent (CHA):
Shri. S.N. Kantawala also represented the CHA, arguing that the CHA filed the shipping bill before the LEO was issued, and the vessel sailed without their knowledge. Relying on precedents like N. Karim & Sons vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), it was contended that as the CHA acted on behalf of the exporter, no penalty should be levied. The Tribunal, following previous decisions, waived the penalty on the CHA and allowed their appeal.
Penalty on Shipping Line:
Ms. Arti Bhide, representing the shipping line, stated that the container was loaded in the presence of the Proper Officer as permitted by Customs authorities. She requested leniency in imposing penalties, considering the breach as a technical one. The Tribunal acknowledged the breach of Customs Act by the shipping line and reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000, citing the case of CSAV India vs. Union of India. The appeal of the shipping line was partially allowed with the reduced penalty.
In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all three appeals, ruling in favor of the exporter regarding the redemption fine, waiving the penalty on the CHA, and reducing the penalty on the shipping line.
-
2010 (8) TMI 939
The Delhi High Court's judgment in 2010 (8) TMI 939 stated that the respondent will follow due procedure under Section 58A of Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004. The petition and application were disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 938
The Delhi High Court case involved a petition by Mr. S.K. Sarwal, Advocate, against Ms. Avinish Ahlawat, Advocate. The respondent withdrew the compulsory audit order related to special audit under the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004. As a result, the petition was disposed of with no costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 937
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of registration of trust u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Valsad.
Ground 1: The Commissioner did not provide adequate hearing to the assessee, rendering the order legally flawed.
Ground 2: The Commissioner wrongly rejected the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act.
Ground 3: The Commissioner incorrectly applied conditions u/s 80G to the registration application u/s 12A.
Ground 4: The rejection of registration u/s 12AA based on the trust being for religious purposes only was erroneous.
The Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee trust applied for registration u/s 12AA of the Act, which was rejected by the Commissioner on the grounds that the trust's objects were not charitable but for a specific community, Jain Swetamber. The Tribunal observed that the trust's main objects were religious in nature, which are considered charitable activities as per legal precedents. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws to support the contention that religious activities can be construed as charitable. It was emphasized that the intention to benefit a section of the public is sufficient for serving a charitable purpose. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by the trust's representative and directed the Commissioner to re-examine the matter, ensuring the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities. The Tribunal instructed the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee trust.
No additional grounds were raised, and hence, the Tribunal dismissed the residuary ground. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The judgment was pronounced on 6-08-2010 by Shri Mukul Shrawat & Shri A N Pahuja, JJ.
-
2010 (8) TMI 936
Refund claim - prices are fixed on the basis of the tender and series of negotiations which normally take some months - the assessee cleared the goods for the period from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2000 at a price which was higher than the price which had been fixed - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR Versus ORIENTAL EXPOLSIVES (P) LTD. [2007 (8) TMI 206 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY], where it was held that when the assessee has not passed on the duty to the customer and if it is not a case of unjust enrichment and the customer who paid excessive duty, subsequently has raised bills seeking adjustment which has been granted and when this fact has already been brought to the notice of the Department even before payment of the excise duty, even before the contract is concluded tenders are accepted and the rates are fixed, the assessee is entitled to the refund - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (8) TMI 935
Whether tenants on a monthly rental of ₹ 4000/- and as such the eviction proceeding is not maintainable in respect of the premises under the 1999 Rent Act as the same is not applicable to premises where the monthly rental exceeds ₹ 3500/-?
Whether the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to try the said eviction proceeding as the 1999 Rent Act does not apply?
-
2010 (8) TMI 934
Rebate claim - only dispute raised, is that the Petitioners have failed to establish that the goods sold by the Petitioners to the Exporter under 7 invoices, form part of the goods purchased by the Petitioners from the manufacturer under the 11 invoices raised by the said manufacturer - Held that: - documents produced by the Petitioners, establishes beyond any doubt that the goods purchased by the Petitioners from the manufacturer are the goods sold by the Petitioners to the exporter and the same have been exported by the said exporter. The Respondent No.2 has, therefore, erred in concluding that the Petitioners could not prove beyond doubt that the goods cleared on the payment of duty for home consumption, were subsequently exported through shipping bills.
The Order dated 29th May 2006 passed by the Respondent No.2, is erroneous and perverse and is hereby quashed and set aside - rebate allowed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2010 (8) TMI 933
Issues involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.7.2001 regarding the entitlement to benefits for a manufacturer of MS Pipes in Kutchch district of Gujarat, specifically in relation to the commencement of commercial production before 31.12.2005 and the eligibility for duty refund on coated pipes manufactured after the cut-off date.
Summary:
Issue 1: Entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 39/2001-CE
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS Pipes, availed benefits under the notification for a new unit set up in Kutchch district before 31.12.2005. Refund claims for duty paid were initially granted, but subsequent claims for duty on coated pipes manufactured after 31.12.2005 were rejected by authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that benefits apply only to products commencing commercial production before the cut-off date. The appellant argued that coating of pipes is a continuation of MS pipe manufacture, requesting consideration of commercial production before 31.12.2005 for coated pipes as well. However, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the need for separate registration for the coating unit post-31.12.2005.
Issue 2: Separate registration for PE Coating unit
The appellant sought a new registration for the PE Coating unit post-rejection of duty refund claims. The original adjudicating authority initially rejected the request, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, directing the grant of a new registration. The Tribunal upheld this decision, highlighting the separation of the coating unit from the bare pipe manufacturing unit and the need for distinct registrations for both units.
Decision and Conclusion:
The Tribunal acknowledged the separation of the bare pipe manufacturing unit and the PE Coating unit as distinct entities requiring separate registrations. As the coated pipes' commercial production began after 31.12.2005, the duty refund claim for those pipes was not eligible. However, considering the entitlement of the bare pipe manufacturing unit to benefits under the notification, the Tribunal allowed the refund of duty related to bare pipes cleared for coating purposes. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for the appropriate calculation and refund of duty on bare pipes from Unit No.1, in line with the notification's provisions.
-
2010 (8) TMI 932
Whether a new plea on facts could be agitated before the Writ Court?
Whether High Court ought to have examined the issue in the correct perspective, as respondent No. 1 did not controvert the plea taken by the appellants of sending the allotment letter by Registered Post?
-
2010 (8) TMI 931
Whether once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge?
Whether not only possession but conscious possession has been established?
-
2010 (8) TMI 930
Issues involved: Eligibility for small scale exemption based on branding of chewing tobacco.
Summary:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI dealt with the eligibility of the appellants for small scale exemption concerning the branding of chewing tobacco. The issue revolved around the use of brand names on the labels of the appellants' products and its impact on their entitlement to the exemption. The first period under consideration was from 1-5-2003 to 31-3-2004, during which the abbreviation 'ARR' was prominently displayed on the label. The subsequent period saw the label indicating 'Mfrs. ARR ENTERPRISES' along with the address. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including the case of CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Packwell Traders, where it was established that even the use of a part of a brand name or trademark could disentitle a person from claiming small scale exemption if it indicated a connection in the course of trade. Consequently, for the first period, the Tribunal ruled that the appellants' chewing tobacco was considered branded due to the presence of the brand name 'ARR,' leading to the denial of exemption for that period. However, for the subsequent period starting from 1-4-2004, where only the manufacturing company's name was used on the label, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to small scale exemption based on the decision in the case of CCE v. Mahaan Dairies. Therefore, the duty demand for the first period was confirmed, while the penalty was set aside. On the other hand, the impugned orders for the subsequent period were overturned, allowing the appellants' appeals. In conclusion, Appeal No. E/658/2005 was partly allowed by setting aside the penalty, while Appeal Nos. E/869/2006 and E/351/2007 were fully allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 929
Issues involved:
1. Appeal on the grounds of the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal being considered as perverse.
2. Denial of benefit under Notification No.13/2003-CE.
3. Imposition of penalty in matters relating to the interpretation of the Notification.
Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the Ld. Tribunal's order, claiming it was perverse for not considering relevant evidence and material regarding the premature demand and fulfillment of conditions under the Notification. The appellant argued that only small growers could exist in West Bengal under specific provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. However, the appellant failed to purchase tea leaf directly from growers as required by the notification, instead engaging middlemen for procurement. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the documentation, such as mismatched signatures on money receipts and delivery challans. The Commissioner of Appeal granted relief considering the land reforms act, but this order was not presented to the Tribunal earlier. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision based on the facts presented and dismissed the appeal.
2. The Ld. Tribunal denied the appellant the benefit of Notification No.13/2003-CE, which exempted additional excise duty on tea, due to the appellant's failure to purchase tea leaf directly from growers as specified. The appellant's argument that it was challenging the misinterpretation of the notification by the Tribunal was not upheld. The Court emphasized that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions outlined in the notification to qualify for the exemption. The Court also noted that the grounds of appeal did not mention the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, which could have been crucial in the case.
3. The issue of penalty imposition in matters related to the interpretation of the Notification was raised. The appellant questioned the validity of imposing a penalty in such circumstances. However, the Court did not delve into this issue as the primary focus was on whether the appellant met the conditions of the notification to claim the exemption. The Court dismissed the appeal but allowed the appellant to take further legal steps based on additional materials not presented earlier. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal did not prejudice the appellant's rights, and no costs were awarded in this case.
-
2010 (8) TMI 928
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Ownership and approval of the housing project.
3. Role of the developer in the housing project.
4. Interpretation of development agreements.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether the assessees were entitled to deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the assessees were not eligible for the deduction as they were not the owners of the land and the approval for the housing project was not in their name. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, and the ITAT upheld this decision, stating that the deduction is available to the undertaking developing and building the housing project, regardless of whether the land is owned by the developer or not.
2. Ownership and Approval of the Housing Project:
The Revenue contended that the approval for developing and building housing projects was granted to the original landowners, not the assessees, who acted as agents for the execution of the projects. The ITAT found that the assessees had dominant control over the projects and developed the land at their own cost and risk. The Tribunal referred to the case of Radhe Developers vs. ITO, where it was held that the deduction under Section 80IB(10) is available if the developer has dominant control over the project and has developed the land at its own cost and risk.
3. Role of the Developer in the Housing Project:
The ITAT examined whether the assessees acted merely as contractors or had a more significant role in the development of the housing projects. The Tribunal concluded that the assessees had undertaken the development and construction of the housing projects at their own risk and cost, thereby qualifying as developers. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "developer" is not contradictory to the term "contractor" and that an undertaking developing and building a housing project is entitled to the deduction, irrespective of ownership of the land.
4. Interpretation of Development Agreements:
The ITAT analyzed the development agreements between the assessees and the landowners. The Tribunal found that the agreements effectively transferred all rights of development and construction to the assessees for a consideration. The assessees were responsible for obtaining necessary approvals, incurring expenses, and taking all risks associated with the development of the housing projects. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., which highlighted that the nature of the agreement should be determined based on the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.
Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the assessees, concluding that they had dominant control over the projects and developed the land at their own cost and risk. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the deduction is available to the undertaking developing and building the housing project, regardless of land ownership. The decision emphasized the importance of the developer's role and the interpretation of development agreements in determining eligibility for the deduction.
-
2010 (8) TMI 927
The Supreme Court admitted appeals, condoned delay, set aside Tribunal's order in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Euro Cotspins Ltd., and remitted the case for a fresh decision. All contentions left open. Civil Appeals allowed and disposed of with no costs.
............
|
9911796707
