Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 321 to 340 of 536 Records

• 2007 (12) TMI 219
  

  Block Assessment – Undisclosed income - First being as to whether for the purposes of block assessment under section 158BC the computation of undisclosed income can include income of any previous year which was below taxable limit but for which no return under section 139 was filed since there was no obligation under the Act to file the return – whether the income from undisclosed sources represented through assets acquired by the parents of the assessee can be the subject-matter of block assessment in the hands of the assessee - held that - if the Assessing Officer finds that the income of the assessee falls below the taxable limit during any particular assessment year then the income of that assessment year shall not be taken to be a part of the undisclosed income for the purpose of block assessment - , on the face of the language of section 158BB and rather all provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B, we are satisfied that even from the standpoint of burden of proof the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence of the assessee

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 218
  

  Industrial Undertaking – deduction - . The CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the deduction to the assessee under section 80HHB in respect of the interest on RBI bonds as well as the deduction under section 80-IA in respect of the transportation charges received by it. The Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the CIT(A) – held that - as regards the interest on RBI bonds, this was part of the total settlement package by which the assessee was to receive Rs. 54.93 crores for the works undertaken in Iraq as a sub-contractor of the IRCON – benefit of deduction allowed u/s 80HHB - business of the assessee included not only manufacturing but all incidental activities undertaken till the delivery of the manufactured goods was effected. The benefit of the deduction to the assessee in terms of section 80-IA of the Act cannot be denied since the receipts on account of transportation are a part of its business receipts

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 217
  

  Notional Tax - According to the Revenue, the tax effect in this case on a notional basis is about Rs. 47.65 lakhs, although the assessee has been assessed at a loss - According to for the Revenue, deletion of additions made by the AO will be carried forward to the subsequent years and may reduce the taxable income for those years - Held that - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the manner of valuation was in accordance with the method consistently followed by the assessee. It was also found that a decrease in stock of Rs. 1.09 crores was partly due to the sale of finished goods at lower than cost and partly due to diminution in the value of the closing stock. The explanation given by the assessee for making loss on such sales was found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to be reasonable and supported by documentary evidence – revenue appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 216
  

  Turnkey Works Contract - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that drawing, designing a engineering services were paid separately for which the appellant should be brought to the ambit of tax as “Consulting Engineer’ and confirmed the demand – Held that - It is the elementary principle of natural justice that basis of levy is to be made known to the tax payer for his defence. Otherwise, proceeding shall be ill-founded. Nature of service, value of taxable service and from whom such value was received were not patent from the show-cause notice - are surprised that how both the Authorities below proceeded to merely make guess work in the matter of levy of tax when tax is to be levied by strict letters of law – matter remanded.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 215
  

  Interest on irregular cenvat credit – Held that - On a plain reading of the above rule it is clear that since the respondent assessee used the Cenvat credit wrongly he became liable to pay duty along with interest as provided under the said rules. The provisions of Sections 11A, 11AA and 11AB provided for procedure for recovery of the said duty along with interest in case the assessee fails to pay the same. - the Tribunal was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority in levying interest on the amount of credit which was availed by the respondent-assessee wrongly though the same was paid by the assessee prior to issuance of show cause notice. With the result the substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is answered in favour of the appellant Revenue.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 214
  

  Hire Charges – Assessee claims as Business Income – AO held as Income from House Property – Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of AO – on the basis of Commissioner (Appeals) notices u/s 148 issued for earlier years – Tribunal and confirmed the stand of Assessee as Business Income – HC confirmed the order of Tribunal – Revenue filed appeal before SC – SC observed that that in this case there were two separate proceedings involved, viz., order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) plus proceedings under section 148. Unfortunately, all proceedings are clubbed in the writ petitions. We do not know the exact status of those proceedings – Assessee directed to file an appeal before tribunal u/s 253(1)

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 213
  

  Personal Liability of Directors – Arrears of Dues and Recovery thereof - whether a Director of a Company can be made personally liable for the amount due from the Company for the arrears of State and Central sales tax? – It was observed that the company is still not wound up or formally liquidated – Held that the notices are not only illegal but also arbitrary and whimsical as the same have been issued on 22-12-2005 in spite of the fact that the law has been settled by this Court in the cases of Suneet Khurana on 3-9-1997 and Mukesh Gupta on 18-7-1996 - The writ petition is thus, allowed and consequently, notices Annexures quashed with cost of Rs. 10000. - Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 212
  

  M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. entered into a contract with the respondent - Respondent assessee is a society - Its members consist of truck operators -The question which arose before the HC was whether assessee was liable or not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C - In our view, the afore-stated question is a substantial question of law - HC ought to have decided the said question. It ought not to have dismissed the appeals summarily - matter remitted to the High Court

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 211
  

  Laying down of pipeline – demand under head “Commercial or Industrial services” - applicants’ contention is that the said pipeline was laid down for water supply by Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (GWSSB) and cannot be said to be a pipeline used primarily for commercial purpose or industry - Appellant has contended that inasmuch as GWSSB is not making any profit on the sale of water and is undergoing losses, the same cannot be considered to be a commercial concern - issue is arguable and final decision cannot be taken at this stage – stay granted partly

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 210
  

  Admissibility of credit on capital goods (power unit) which have been sold but not removed from premises - transactions of sale of power unit and simultaneous lease of premises are wisely resorted to by the assessee as a device to avoid the tax liability on it - said purchaser, after purchasing the power unit from the assessee, has been enjoying the same as its absolute owner and has been supplying to the assessee the power generated from the said power unit on payment basis - this being so it is quite evident that the assessee-company lost its ownership and also control over the said power unit - Tribunal without proper appreciation of the said transactions has allowed the appeal of the assessee-company – revenue’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 209
  

  Export of exempted goods - common inputs in dutiable goods and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate accounts as contemplated by Rule 6(2) – held that in such case where goods are exported, direction by revenue to the petitioner to pay 10% of sale price of exempted goods u/r 6(3)(b) is not justified - If the exempted products are exported outside India the provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of CCR are applicable. Therefore, the bar provided u/r 6(1) and the liability created u/r 6(3)(b) are not attracted – therefore, credit is available on “inputs used in mfg. of goods exported” even if goods are exempted

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 208
  

  “Universal measuring machine” used to find out whether goods (automobile components) manufactured fit into specification or design – such machine fall within definition of Capital goods - revenue contend that even without this machine product can be manufactured – but that does not mean that revenue can direct the assessee to manufacture goods without the use of the machine in question – credit cannot be disallowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 207
  

  Whether Tribunal is right in allowing deduction u/s 80-I – question, involved is no more res integra as it has been already decided in the case of the assessee himself that the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction u/s 80-I, as more than twenty persons were working under control of the assessee in the industrial undertaking of the assessee – in view of law laid down in the case of CIT v. Prithviraj Bhoorchand, question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 206
  

  Revenue contend that applications preferred by the assessee before Settlement Commission did not fulfil the requirements of S. 245C - disclosure of their income, stated to be true and had not been disclosed before the AO – deduction claimed by assessee on amount shown as loans – held that assessee cannot get benefit of section 245C where amount have already been discovered by the assessing authority and added to the total income of assessee - Commission directed to reject assessee application

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 205
  

  Petitioners seeks implementation of the order passed by the CESTAT - order passed in July, 2006 cannot be kept unimplemented for the simple ground that the copy of the order has not been received by the Customs Department - in order to ascertain as to whether any step was taken to obtain the order, Assistant Registrar of CESTAT is requested to furnish a Report on the aspect of the service of the order in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 129B of the Customs Act

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 204
  

  Interest payable on delayed refund - In pursuance of the audit objection, the appellant paid the disputed amount on 24-11-2001; claimed refund on 7-1-2002; the same was rejected by the original authority; Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 29-4-05 allowed the appeal - When, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority and allowed the refund claim the interest liability should have been determined with reference to the date of the claim that is 7-1-2002

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 203
  

  Validity of the income escaping assessment completed u/s 147 - Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 and revised the assessment under section 147 when he noticed that the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was not permissible because there was no income available after setting off of carry forward losses – action of AO is justified – since assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), reassessment proceedings were valid

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 202
  

  ROM application by Revenue - penalty upon the appellants stands set aside by the Bench on the ground that the matter was not free from doubt and during the relevant period there was a decision by the Tribunal in favour of the assessees – revenue relying upon the decision of LB of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable - setting aside of penalties in the present order cannot be held to be a mistake requiring any rectification - application is rejected

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 201
  

  First respondent was a Steamer agent of the ship - second respondent was the consignee of the imported goods – who is liable to pay Demurrage chargers – second respondent, consignee of goods was Holder of Bill of Lading, so he was bound to clear goods from Port - while, first respondent, steamer agent had nothing to do with clearance of goods from Port – therefore, only consignee of goods was liable to pay demurrage charges - appeal by board of trustees of the port is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 200
  

  Application of the petitioner-trust for renewal of exemption u/s 80G was refused on the ground that in one of the object of the Trust Deed the construction of temples etc. was included though notwithstanding such inclusion in object clause, no temples in fact have been constructed – sub-section 5B was inserted in section 80G w.e.f. April 1, 2000 - Commissioner is directed to consider the application of petitioner independently in view of the provision of sub-section 5B of section 80G

  ---

1 ....131415161718192021........ 27