|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1235 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 940
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Whether the levy of sales tax on ducting works contract is justified under the TNGST Act.
2. Whether the ducting works contract can be considered as an outright sale of duct.
3. Whether the retrospective amendment to section 3B of the TNGST Act affects the assessment.
4. Whether the petitioner is eligible for deduction on the purchase of G.I. sheets under section 3B(2)(b) of the TNGST Act.
Issue 1:
The petitioner undertook works contract for installation of ventilation plants, humidification, and air-conditioning. The assessing officer found that the duct sold to customers was a different commercial commodity, leading to tax liability. The petitioner argued that as the work was indivisible and the turnover was indivisible, deeming sale did not apply. The assessing officer disagreed, stating that the goods were different commodities and thus taxable. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment, confirming the levy of tax at 15% under entry 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the TNGST Act.
Issue 2:
The petitioner contended that the duct could be separated back into sheets through a simple hand process, supporting a claim of exemption as second sales. However, the court found that the duct-making process involved more than just bending sheets and was irreversible, leading to the rejection of the exemption claim. The assessment based on the consideration for both material value and labor was deemed valid.
Issue 3:
The court examined sample invoices and duct samples, determining that the materials were supplied separately and the duct-making process was irreversible. Despite the nature of the work being a works contract, the separate invoicing of material value supported the conclusion that what was sold was a duct, a different commercial commodity. As a result, the court upheld the Tribunal's order, dismissing the tax case revisions.
Outcome:
The court dismissed the tax case revisions, upholding the levy of sales tax on the ducting works contract. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
2012 (8) TMI 939
Issues involved: Appeal against order-in-appeal denying Cenvat credit on rent-a-cab service for transportation of employees.
Summary:
1. The appellant availed Cenvat credit on rent-a-cab service for transporting employees. The department denied the credit citing lack of nexus between the service and manufacturing. The lower appellate authority upheld the denial.
2. The appellant cited a High Court judgment stating rent-a-cab service qualifies as an eligible input service under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant requested for the appeal to be allowed based on this precedent.
3. The revenue representative acknowledged the settled issue as per the High Court judgment.
4. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that rent-a-cab service is an eligible input service integral to manufacturing activities based on previous High Court judgments. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the stay application was disposed of.
-
2012 (8) TMI 938
Issues involved:
The issue involves a challenge to a demand made by the respondent-Corporation towards payment of service charges, with the petitioner claiming exemption from tax under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Details:
Issue 1 - Challenge to Demand for Service Charges:
The petitioner contended that they are exempted from tax under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India and thus the demand for tax by the respondents is unjustifiable. The petitioner argued that the demand for tax is liable to be interfered with.
Issue 2 - Interpretation of Tax Collection and Service Charges:
The Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner referred to a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar v. Senior Superintendent of Post Officer, Amritsar Division, highlighting that tax cannot be collected under the guise of service charges. The respondents, on the other hand, explained that while they used to collect tax until 2007, they have since refrained from doing so upon realizing the prohibition under Article 285 of the Constitution of India. However, they maintained that the petitioners are still obligated to pay service charges for various amenities like water supply, street-lighting, approach roads, and sewage.
Judgment:
The Court noted that the issue at hand has been settled by the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Municipal Corporation, emphasizing that tax cannot be disguised as service charges. Consequently, the impugned notice demanding payment is set aside, and the Corporation is directed to issue a fresh demand in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. The rule is issued and made absolute to the extent indicated, thereby disposing of the petition.
This judgment clarifies the distinction between tax collection and service charges, affirming the petitioner's exemption from tax under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India while emphasizing the obligation to pay legitimate service charges for specific amenities provided by the Corporation.
-
2012 (8) TMI 937
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai confirmed service tax against the applicants for freight forwarding agency service and multimodal transport service. The applicants relied on previous Tribunal decisions stating ocean and air freight are not liable to service tax, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit and stay on recovery during appeal.
-
2012 (8) TMI 936
The Gujarat High Court heard the case regarding short term capital gain in the hands of the assessee firm. The substantial question of law was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the gain would be the difference between Rs. 86,15,894 and the written down value of Rs. 34,64,745. The Court issued notice to the respondent for submission of the Paper Book within three months.
-
2012 (8) TMI 935
Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the I.T. Act.
2. Addition on account of provision for doubtful debts.
3. Adjustment of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation from long-term capital gains.
Summary:
1. Assumption of Jurisdiction u/s 147 of the I.T. Act:
The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on an income of Rs. 16,73,26,015/-. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 due to the alleged under-assessment of income by Rs. 1,87,41,755/- on account of provision for doubtful debts not added to the other income. The assessee contested the reopening, arguing that detailed inquiries were made during the original assessment, and no new material justified the reassessment. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not applied his mind and there was no material to support the reopening. Citing the cases of Satnam Overseas Ltd. & another Vs. Addl. CIT and CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 was quashed.
2. Addition on Account of Provision for Doubtful Debts:
The AO added Rs. 1,87,41,755/- to the income, claiming it was a provision for doubtful debts. The assessee provided detailed reconciliations showing that the actual bad debt claimed was Rs. 46,37,814/-, and the provision for doubtful debts was written back. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, confirming that the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the provision for doubtful debts. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, noting that the AO had no basis for the addition and had not considered the detailed reconciliations provided by the assessee.
3. Adjustment of Carried Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation from Long-Term Capital Gains:
The AO set off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4,61,24,493/- against long-term capital gains, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal found that the issue was covered by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of M/s Nandi Steels Ltd., which held that brought forward depreciation cannot be set off against capital gains. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment and deleting the addition on account of provision for doubtful debts. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the adjustment of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation from long-term capital gains. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 934
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of availing cenvat credit and concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 06/2002-CE, as well as the reversal of cenvat credit by the manufacturer.
Summary:
Issue 1 - Availing of Cenvat Credit and Concessional Rate of Duty:
The respondent, engaged in the manufacture of ceramic glaze tiles, had availed cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used for fabrication of capital goods, while simultaneously availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 06/2002-CE and paying a concessional rate of duty on the Glaze Ceramic Tiles. The Revenue contended that since the respondent had availed credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the exemption under the notification was not admissible for clearances of the final product from 2004-2005. The respondent was accused of mis-declaration and wrongly availing the benefit of exemption to evade payment of central excise duty. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, and a demand for differential duty was raised, along with interest and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue 2 - Reversal of Cenvat Credit:
The appeal filed by the Excise Department challenged the order of the Tribunal, which had set aside the demand raised by the Commissioner. During the appeal process, it was revealed that the respondent had actually reversed the cenvat credit taken, contrary to the initial observation made at the time of admission. A letter produced by the department clarified this fact, indicating that the respondent had reversed the cenvat credit. Consequently, the question framed by the Division Bench did not require an answer, and the Tax Appeal was disposed of in line with a previous judgment by the Court.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of availing cenvat credit, concessional rate of duty, and the reversal of cenvat credit, ultimately leading to the disposal of the Tax Appeal based on the clarified facts regarding the reversal of cenvat credit by the manufacturer.
-
2012 (8) TMI 933
Penalty - Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in giving benefit of the reduced penalty by totally misconstruing the proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Held that: - As per the First Proviso of the section, if assessee pays duty and interest within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, the amount of penalty will be reduced to 25% of the duty determined and the assessee would have to pay penalty to the extent of 25% only. The Second Proviso says that the benefit of the First Proviso would be available provided that the reduced penalty is also paid within the period of 30 days referred to in that Proviso.
The option to pay within 30 days under the Proviso concerned to section 11AC of the Act, if not given by the adjudicating authority, such option should be given to the assessee at the appellate stage and the period of 30 days would commence from the date of giving such option.
No Substantial error of law is committed by the Tribunal in giving benefit of the reduced to the respondent-assessee under the Proviso to section 11AC of the Act. The benefit of payment of reduced penalty can be availed by the assessee at the appellate stages also - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (8) TMI 932
The High Court of Allahabad allowed a writ petition against an order of the appellate Tribunal rejecting an application for partial withdrawal of an appeal. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter within one month in accordance with Section 86(4) of the Act.
-
2012 (8) TMI 931
Benefit of notifications dated 28.02.1999 and 01.03.2000 - The petitioners never appeared to be interested in seriously pursuing their challenge to the aforesaid orders. They did not make any attempt to restore the appeal which was dismissed only for nonremoval of office objections - Held that: - When the proceedings of the court are made instrumental only for the purpose of whiling away time and to rid off the obligations arising from orders of court of law, it amounts to abuse of process of law - The conduct of the petitioners showed that they acted in that fashion and abused the process of law by approaching court/forums at their own convenience using the process to avoid the consequences of the orders of the competent authorities. It was far from bonafide.
The conduct of the petitioners was not honest and their plea was not bonafide. If the events noted hereinabove are recapitulated, it manifests that the petitioners wanted to dodge at every stage - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2012 (8) TMI 930
Issues involved: Challenge to revocation of CHA license by Commissioner of Customs without disclosing grounds for disagreement with Inquiry Officer's findings, violation of principles of natural justice.
In the present case, the petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs revoking their CHA license despite the Inquiry Officer finding no charges proved against the petitioner. The High Court held that the impugned order was violative of natural justice as the grounds for disagreement were not disclosed to the petitioner, depriving them of the opportunity to respond. The Court set aside the original order and directed the Commissioner to provide the grounds for disagreement, allow the petitioner to respond, and then pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.
The Court directed the Commissioner to furnish the grounds for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings to the petitioner within 3 weeks, following which the petitioner would have 2 weeks to file a reply. Subsequently, the Commissioner was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner within 4 weeks from receiving the petitioner's reply. It was emphasized that the petitioner was prohibited from conducting business under the CHA license until a new order was issued.
The High Court concluded by making the rule absolute in the specified terms, with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 929
Invoking the provisions of section 153C - whether the documents seized in the course of search were belonging to the assessee or not? - Held that:- The document in question was the agreement dated 21.10.2002, copy of which is available on pages 110-117 of the paper book. This agreement is between Shri Amratbhai Talshibhai Desai being the party of one part and Shri Vikas Arvindbhai Shah and Abhabhai Arjanbhai Jadeja i.e. the present assessee being the other part. This agreement was in relation to sale of land owned by party of one part to the parties of other part for a consideration of ₹ 1,65,73,410/-. The agreement is duly signed by the assessee and other two persons and it was duly notarized also. Considering these facts, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that this document is not belonging to the assessee and, therefore, this objection of the assessee is not valid.
Not only the name of the assessee is appearing in the seized papers but it is an agreement between the assessee along with one other person to the sale of land and this agreement is duly signed by the assessee also and, therefore, the document found in the course of search is definitely belonging to the assessee - Decided against assessee.
Unaccounted receipt in the hands of the assessee - Held that:- A clear finding is given by Ld. CIT(A) that even in remand proceedings, no further corroborative evidence have been gathered by the A.O. to justify the addition made by him. We have already noted that even as per the statement of Shri V.A. Shah, the amount received by the assessee was on account of refund of cancellation of deal and not on account of dalali/brokerage. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
In assessment year 2005-06 no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 91.50 lacs on account of alleged on money payment by the assessee or in respect of addition of ₹ 44.80 lacs ultimately not made by the A.O. in respect of receipt of dalali/brokerage by the assessee from Shri Vikas A Shah. Hence, in this year also, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
-
2012 (8) TMI 928
Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of over-payment due to wrong fixation of pay scales based on the 5th and 6th Pay Commission Reports.
2. Legality of recovering over-paid amounts from teachers who did not commit misrepresentation or fraud.
3. Applicability of previous Supreme Court judgments on similar matters.
4. Consideration of the principle of unjust enrichment and public money.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Recovery of Over-payment Due to Wrong Fixation of Pay Scales:
The core issue in the appeal was whether the over-payment made to teachers and principals due to incorrect fixation of the 5th and 6th pay scales could be recovered. The High Court had previously ruled that since the payments were made due to a mistake by the District Education Officer, they could be recovered. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, argued that the recovery was not legal as the over-payment was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on their part.
2. Legality of Recovering Over-paid Amounts:
The appellants contended that the recovery of the over-paid amounts was not legal since there was no misrepresentation or fraud involved. They cited several judgments, including *Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India* and *Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana*, to support their claim that recovery should not be made in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud. The respondents, however, argued that the beneficiaries had no right to retain the over-paid amounts, relying on the judgment in *Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) v. Government of India and Ors.*.
3. Applicability of Previous Supreme Court Judgments:
The Court reviewed several previous judgments to determine the applicability of the principles laid down. In *Shyam Babu Verma*, the Court had restrained recovery due to the financial impact and long period of over-payment. In *Sahib Ram*, recovery was restrained due to the principle of equal pay for equal work. However, the Court distinguished these cases from the present one, noting that the appellants were still in service and not on the verge of retirement, unlike the beneficiaries in *Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.*.
4. Consideration of Unjust Enrichment and Public Money:
The Court emphasized that the over-payment constituted public money, often referred to as "tax payers' money," and highlighted that any amount paid or received without authority of law could be recovered to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court noted that the excess payment was made due to a bona fide mistake and that the appellants were bound by a condition in the pay fixation order that allowed for recovery in cases of irregular or wrong pay fixation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the excess payment made due to wrong or irregular pay fixation could be recovered, barring a few exceptional cases of extreme hardship. The appellants did not fall into any exceptional category that would prevent recovery. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment and ordered the recovery of the excess payment from the appellants' salaries in twelve equal monthly installments. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 927
Issues involved:
The judgment involves an Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, relevant for the assessment year 1992-93, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Kanpur.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Lease Rent
The first issue raised was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 24,000/- made on account of lease rent without appreciating the facts of the case. The Tribunal had given benefit of the interest amounting to Rs. 12,38,966/- provided under the Levy Sugar Equalization Fund Act, of interest on the borrowed fund of Rs. 4,06,898/- and lease rent of Rs. 36,000/- on the ground that they were allowed in previous years. The appeal challenging the interest amount was dismissed earlier, and no appeal was filed for other benefits, hence those findings could not be challenged.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest on Borrowed Funds
The second issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing a relief of Rs. 3,94,550/- to the assessee in respect of the disallowance made on account of interest paid on borrowed funds without appreciating the facts of the case. The Tribunal had upheld the payment of consultancy of Rs. 3,50,000/- to M/s. K.L. Scientific as broker's commission for importing the gas cylinders, and this finding was also upheld by the Tribunal with no illegality found.
Issue 3: Addition of Rental Charges of Gas Cylinders
The third issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in law upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,425/- made on account of rental charges of Gas Cylinders without appreciating the facts of the case. The Tribunal had given the benefit of Rs. 9,615/- on account of rental charges of gas cylinders, stating it as a finding of fact with no illegality found.
The judgment concluded that since the questions of law raised in the appeal were covered in a previous assessment year judgment, there was no need to decide the questions again, and hence the Income Tax Appeal was dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 926
Allowability of deduction u/s 80IB (10) - Held that:- A.O. has not disputed the eligibility of the appellant for claiming the deduction and further in view of the fact that there is deeming completion certificate issued by the Corporation as discussed above, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB (10).Claim allowed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 925
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Explanation for the delay.
3. Legal standards for "sufficient cause" u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
The applications filed by the State of Gujarat sought condonation of delays ranging from 630 to 2067 days in preferring tax appeals against the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The court considered all applications together due to the similarity in grounds for delay.
Issue 2: Explanation for the Delay
In Civil Application No. 154 of 2012, the delay of 2067 days was explained through an additional affidavit detailing the procedural steps and administrative delays. Similarly, in Civil Applications No. 181 and 182 of 2012, the delay of 1947 days was attributed to the movement of files and procedural stages within the government departments. A common ground cited in all applications was the heavy drafting workload and shortage of Assistant Government Pleaders and Stenographers in the office of the Government Pleader.
Issue 3: Legal Standards for "Sufficient Cause" u/s 5 of the Limitation Act
The court emphasized that "sufficient cause" must be construed liberally but should not excuse negligence or lack of bona fide. The Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and Post Master General v. Living Media India were cited, highlighting that the government cannot be granted undue latitude for bureaucratic delays. The court noted that the explanations provided, including administrative delays and infrastructure bottlenecks, did not constitute "sufficient cause."
Conclusion:
The court found that the explanations for the delays were inadequate and did not meet the legal standards for "sufficient cause" u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, all applications for condonation of delay were dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 924
The Gujarat High Court heard an appeal regarding a tax issue. The court formulated two key questions of law related to errors made by the Appellate Tribunal in considering and deleting certain additions to the tax amount. The court issued notice to the respondent for further proceedings.
-
2012 (8) TMI 923
Issues involved: Appeal filed by assessee regarding addition of agriculture income and loan amounts, and confirmation of household expenses addition.
Issue 1: Agriculture Income Addition
The Assessing Officer estimated agricultural income at Rs. 72,000 instead of the disclosed Rs. 2,26,888, taxing the balance as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 60,000, considering previous year's income. ITAT held that the disclosed income should be accepted, as supported by detailed crop-wise receipts and production records. The estimated fixation of income was deemed unnecessary, and the ground was allowed.
Issue 2: Loan from Smt. Chandrakanta Devi Jain
Assessee showed an unsecured loan of Rs. 2,10,000 from Smt. Chandrakanta Devi Jain. The Assessing Officer invoked section 68 due to lack of address and PAN information in the confirmation. Despite the lender's affidavit and repayment evidence, the CIT(A) affirmed the addition. ITAT found the loan genuine based on the lender's documents and repayment proofs, directing deletion of the addition.
Issue 3: Loan from M/s. Suparshav Industries
A loan of Rs. 7,00,000 from M/s. Suparshav Industries was questioned by the Assessing Officer for lack of certain information. The CIT(A) upheld the addition under section 68. ITAT noted the PAN information and income tax returns of the lender, directing the assessee to provide details of loan repayment for verification, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.
Issue 4: Household Expenses Addition
Assessee's household withdrawals were deemed insufficient by the Assessing Officer, who estimated higher expenses and added Rs. 65,929 to the income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. ITAT upheld the estimation as reasonable, dismissing the ground. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (8) TMI 922
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty - The waste obtained during the manufacture of sugar are referred as bagasse, press mud and bio-compost. The Revenue is of the view that the applicants availed credit in respect of common inputs and input service in the manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty and in respect of the goods which are cleared without payment of duty and are not maintaining separate account therefore, the applicants are liable to pay appropriate duty as provided in the CCR, 2004.
Held that: - Bagasse is the waste product left after the crushing of sugarcane. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the assessee possibly could have maintained separate account for the inputs for production of sugar and molasses (excisable item) and bagasse - Moreover, neither the show cause notice nor the impugned Order-in-Appeal mentions as to which common Cenvat credit availed inputs have been used in manufacture of sugar and molasses (dutiable final products) and bagasse (exempted final product). Since Bagasse emerges at sugarcane crushing stage, there is no possibility of any input-chemicals etc. having been used at that stage.
Waiver granted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellants.
-
2012 (8) TMI 921
Valuation - includibility - bullet-proofing charges - job-work - Revenue is demanding duty after adding the bullet-proofing charges to the assessable value of the Jeep on the ground that the order received for Bullet Proof Jeep and the appellants supplied the same
............
|
9911796707
