|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 2041 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 1725
Validity of reassessment - survey proceedings undertaken at the business premises of the petitioner u/s 52 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - Supervisory Jurisdiction on the part of this Court - Held that:- This court is satisfied that the proceedings of the respondent-Commercial Taxes Department, in the present case, does not require any interference or investigation under the directions of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This court does not have any supervisory jurisdiction to oversee the dealing of the complaints of the individual assessees by heads of Commercial Taxes Department or any other Department for that matter. If there are allegations of corruption or other specific nature duly supported with the evidence, there are agencies and authorities to look into that and the writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked for the purpose of directing such investigations - If there is any allegations of the petitioner made against that Customs Official, that is not the subject-matter of the present writ petition. Therefore, even if a complaint is filed against any official of the Commercial Taxes Department as well, that too, also cannot be the matter of investigation under the writ jurisdiction.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1724
Exemption u/s 11 - whether the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature - Exemption from income tax to the local authority - whether Appellant is not a ‘local authority’ as contemplated u/s 10(20)? - Held that:- These appeals have now become academic inasmuch as this Court in case of Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kota [2018 (4) TMI 192 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as held functions which are carried out by the assessee are statutory functions and carry on for the benefit of the State Government for urban development therefore, in our considered opinion, the functions carried out by the authority is a supreme function and fall within the activity of the State Government.
Deletion of 20A will not make difference in case of assessee. In our considered opinion, Clause-3 will come in the help of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we are considered opinion, that the authority assessee is a local authority for the purpose of carrying out of the improvement and development function of the State. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1723
Whether the bought-out goods are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 22/2003?
Held that:- The appeal is of the year 2009 and it has been pending before the Tribunal. Ahead of the transition of Indirect Tax to GST, this Tribunal has been given a mandate to dispose of all old cases - it would be appropriate and prudent to close the file for the purpose of statistics - the appeal is disposed as file closed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1722
Method of Valuation - appellant had supplied paint and also has undertaken the painting contract - to be valued under the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules or following Rule 11 of the Valuation rules? - Held that:- Identical issue decided in the case of M/S COROMANDEL PAINTS LTD. VERSUS CCE & CC, VISAKHAPATNAM [2016 (6) TMI 1018 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where it was held that since the application of paint contains labour costs, the assessable value is to be determined under Rule 11 only after deduction of the value of labour component from the total value for supply and apply.
Penalty - Held that:- The period involved in these appeals in question is prior to the date when the order was passed by the Tribunal and appellant would have had a bonafide belief in continuing to discharge of central excise duty based upon understanding of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules - penalty set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1721
Settlement of a case - Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) granting immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 245H - Held that:- said complaint by the Income Tax Department against the Respondent No.1 is still pending - In view of that matter, the question of granting Respondent No.1 immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 245H of the Act, does not arise. - Revenue petition dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1720
Undisclosed investment - undisclosed ownership of assessee in the 22 properties - additions on account of distribution of profit between two partners - addition made in respect brokerage earned by the assessee - Held that:- While considering the case, the Tribunal had observed that all the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. - Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1719
Protecting the interests of home buyers in projects floated by Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL).
Permission to file SLP is granted. - Issue notices - In the meantime the impugned order(s) passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad shall remain stayed until further orders.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1718
Valuation - related party transaction - case of Department is that one Shri Manish Dhanuka was a common Director in both the companies, namely, assessee- Appellants and M/s Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd., so it was presumed that both are related persons and that is why goods were sold at a lower price to M/s Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd.
Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. vs CCE, [2002 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], has observed that if Directors are common in two different Companies, then they may not be considered as the ‘related persons’ - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1717
CENVAT Credit - MS angle, Channels, Plates, TMT Bars which has been used for fabrication of support structures for various machines including pollution control machinery - denial of credit on the ground that these are not supporting structures nor capital goods as per Rule 2 (k) or Rule 2 (a) of the CCR - Held that:- The appellants have correctly availed the Cenvat credit on the items in question - reliance placed in the case of M/S J.B. DARUKA PAPER LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW [2017 (9) TMI 448 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that Cenvat credit on that part of the HSD Bars, TMT Bars & MS Bars is also admissible which have gone into making of civil foundation to erect capital goods in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1716
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the HC - delay due to pendency of an application u/s 254(2) of rectifying 'mistakes apparent from the record' - Held that:- The time period for filing an appeal under Section 260 A of the Act does not get suspended on account of the pendency of an application before the ITAT under Section 254 (2) of the Act. In the circumstances, the question of invoking Section 14 of the LA would not arise at all. The decision relied upon by Mr. Kapoor has no application to the present case. - No satisfactory reason has been provided by the Appellant for the extraordinary delay of 439 days in the filing the appeal - Decided against the assessee.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1715
Misdeclaration of imported goods - import of Heavy Melting Scrap - Held that:- In the instant case admittedly, the pipes in question were old and used and therefore, these pipes are in the nature of scrap only, as the same cannot be used as prime. In these circumstances, the declaration of the goods by the appellant is correct and therefore, no differential duty be demanded from the appellant.
Moreover, as the goods are scrap, therefore, neither goods are liable for confiscation nor any penalty is warranted.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1714
Rejection of books of accounts - estimation of income - undisclosed investments and expenditures - the assessee retracted from disclosure made during survey - AO made list of defects and rejected the books of account of assessee. The Assessing Officer on the basis of statement recorded during survey estimated the income of assessee @ 15% of the total gross contract receipts. - the rate of net profit estimated by Assessing Officer at 15% tone down to 10%.
Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has made irregularities in recording financial transactions. There are certain unexplained expenditure and investments. The assessee in grounds of appeal as agreed for estimated addition of Net profit @ 8%. Certainly, estimation of income @ 15% of gross contract receipts is on higher side and without any rational. The ld. DR has not been able to substantiate the action of Assessing Officer in adopting 15% ratio. After taking into consideration totality of facts, we are of considered view that if the estimation of net profit as proposed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is further reduced by 1% (one percent) i.e. brought down to 9% of total gross contract receipts for all the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, it would meet the ends of justice. We hold and direct, accordingly.
Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1713
Additions on account of unexplained investment in properties - seized document could be treated as corroborative evidence or not - addition u/s 2(22)(e) towards deemed dividend - Held that:- the case of the Revenue is that certain loose documents were found during search representing the assessee's cash transactions recorded in terms of rupees in crores. The assessee, however, denied this suggesting that these figures represented the calculations for the purpose of vastu shastra. CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently held that there was no material suggesting that the figures indicated in loose papers represented assessee's cash transactions. This was thus purely a question of fact. No question of law therefore arises.
Second question pertains to deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Tribunal found that there was no material found during the survey relatable to this issue and therefore confirmed the view of the CIT(Appeals). - Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1712
Benefit of concessional rate of duty - sale of cement - cement sold to the agencies on MRP basis, but in some cases selling directly to the consumers which includes the Government agencies, builders, institutions and individuals - export to Nepal - Held that:- Appeal(s) are admitted.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1711
Addition u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D - Held that:- Both the lower authorities are of the opinion that the assessee’s investment involved at least this much expenditure in earning its exempt dividend income. The case file however indicates that the assessee has not derived any such exempt income in the impugned assessment year. We therefore quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd [2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] holding that Section 14A read with computation provision enshrined in Rule 8D does not apply in absence of any exempt income in relevant previous year. We therefore quote the above judicial precedent to delete the impugned disallowance
Addition u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) on account late payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI in question - Held that:- There is no dispute that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] upholds such a disallowance in principle. The assessee’s case however is that relevant due date has to be seen not from the relevant month of salary but the one pertaining to its payment. He then files a computation chart indicating it to have paid above employees’ PF/ESI contributions on 22.05.2009 and 28.05.2009 as against the due dates thereof following on 20.06.2009. The Revenue fails to dispute this factual position. We therefore quote this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Kanoi paper & Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2001 (5) TMI 139 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E] that the relevant date in such case is that of month of the actual payment of wages/salaries. We therefore rely on the above co-ordinate bench decision and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance as well. - Assessee appeal allowed
-
2017 (9) TMI 1710
Valuation - abatement of duty element from FOB price - value to be considered for discharge of export duty on Iron Ore Fines - Held that:- The issue is decided on merits against the appellant by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 747 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that FOB price of iron ore exported by one of the present appellants was held to be cum-duty price and accordingly abatement of duty element from the FOB price was allowed to the assessee - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1709
Deduction u/a 10BA - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- The record which was available with the A.O. is required to be taken into consideration and the tribunal while considering the matter has taken into consideration the seven documents, more particularly D.L.C. Certificate which could be procured easily and the other documents like export licence which has been granted w.e.f. 02.09.2002 and registration certificate granted by C.T.O. w.e.f. 26.08.2002. He has also produced the muster roll register. In that view of the matter, the tribunal has considered the complete facts in detail. It will not be appropriate to re-appreciate the facts, more particularly when the tribunal has observed that the discussion which has been done by the A.O. have not been specifically rebutted by the Department. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) towards payment made to c/f agent and work job work contractors - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Since it was reimbursement, in our considered opinion, the tribunal has not committed error in allowing the appeal of the assessee. The further contention by the department if it is reimbursement, it will be open for the department to examine the matter on merits and take independent view considering law prevailing on the date on which situation arises.
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Held that:- The facts of the case were rightly appreciated by the tribunal and the tribunal has not committed serious error in taking into account the stock value on the date and subsequently carried forward. - Revenue appeal dismissed
-
2017 (9) TMI 1708
Addition on account of excess stock and unexplained investment in shop - said amount was specifically surrendered by the assessee during the course of search in statements recorded u/s 132 (4) - tribunal deleted the addition - Held that:- Tribunal has appreciated the fact and also considered the stock register and other material produced on record which has been produced today also before us, we are of the considered opinion the Tribunal being a fact finding authority has given its final finding and it will not be appropriate to disturb the same.
In that view of the matter, counsel for the appellant has also relied upon order of CIT(A) but Tribunal while considering the matter has appreciated the evidence and we are of the considered opinion that it has not committed any error in deleting the income. More particularly the AO himself has observed that in the previous year the assessee has himself shown his income as reproduced above.
The surrender income of ₹ 17,9500/- and assessee stock of ₹ 91,44,118/- is explained by the Tribunal.
Thus the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be confirmed. The issue is answered in favour of assessee against the Department.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1706
Restoring of registration u/s. 12A - assessee contended that the exemption under Section 11 has to be allowed on restoration of such registration - Held that:- We do not think that such ifs and buts would permit the Revenue to get over a presently binding order of the Tribunal. That order of restoration of registration binds the Revenue. That order has not been quashed and set aside by this Court. The Appeal is merely admitted. To our mind, the question as proposed in the present matter is not a substantial question of law.
So long as the law does not oblige entertaining of an Appeal of the Revenue proposing the above question, we do not think we should entertain it. There is a difference and vast as it is, between an order being subjected to challenge and the challenge having succeeded. In the later case, the order is wiped out because then it is quashed and set aside. Today, a challenge is merely pending. That cannot be equated to the challenge succeeding. That hurdle is yet to be crossed. If that is not crossed, the initial order of restoration of registration continues to bind the Revenue. As a result of the above discussion, we do not find that the questions proposed are substantial questions of law
-
2017 (9) TMI 1705
Restoring of registration u/s. 12A - assessee contended that the exemption under Section 11 has to be allowed on restoration of such registration - Held that:- We do not think that such ifs and buts would permit the Revenue to get over a presently binding order of the Tribunal. That order of restoration of registration binds the Revenue. That order has not been quashed and set aside by this Court. The Appeal is merely admitted. To our mind, the question as proposed in the present matter is not a substantial question of law.
So long as the law does not oblige entertaining of an Appeal of the Revenue proposing the above question, we do not think we should entertain it. There is a difference and vast as it is, between an order being subjected to challenge and the challenge having succeeded. In the later case, the order is wiped out because then it is quashed and set aside. Today, a challenge is merely pending. That cannot be equated to the challenge succeeding. That hurdle is yet to be crossed. If that is not crossed, the initial order of restoration of registration continues to bind the Revenue. As a result of the above discussion, we do not find that the questions proposed are substantial questions of law
............
|
9911796707
