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 341 to 360 of 536 Records

• 2007 (12) TMI 199
  

  Appellant-company availed the services of persons from their foreign based parent company for the purpose of repairing their furnace - Services received by the appellants is admittedly for the purpose of repair and maintenance, and the cannot be considered as that of consulting engineering services. The transfer of technical know-how also would not come within the ambit of consulting engineering services – appeal of assessee is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 198
  

  Recovery of tax - Attachment and sale – dept. ordered that sale of properly was fraudulent - Held that in the absence of a declaration by a civil court the order declaring the sale deed, as null and void, was an order without jurisdiction and consequently had to be set aside - Consequently the order of attachment dated is quashed and set aside - As the sale is legal and valid, respondent no.1 was bound to issue the TDS certificate in favour of the petitioners from 30.7.2002 onwards

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 197
  
  Issues:
  Imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 78, and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-filing of ST-3 return, suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax, and failure to deposit tax on time.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the appellant appealing against the imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, engaged in providing services as an "Authorised Service Station," was issued show cause notices for non-filing of ST-3 returns for specific quarters. The appellant had registered in 2001 and had deposited the tax and filed the returns after the issuance of the show cause notices. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax, appropriated the deposited amount, and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 78, and 77 of the Act. The appellant argued that they had deposited the tax before the notices were issued and that the penalties were unwarranted due to fund constraints causing a delay in tax payment.
  
  The appellant's counsel contended that the allegation of suppression of facts to evade service tax was baseless as the tax was paid before the notices were served. On the other hand, the Revenue representative argued that there was suppression of facts leading to tax evasion. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's actions post the show cause notices and observed a delay in filing returns and tax payment. The Commissioner found that the delay did not amount to suppression of facts to evade tax, setting aside the penalty under Section 78. However, penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were upheld due to the appellant's failure to file returns and pay tax within the stipulated period despite depositing the tax before the notices were issued.
  
  Upon review, the Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's deposit of tax before the notices but upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 due to the failure to file returns and pay tax within the required timeframe. The imposition of penalty under Section 78 was set aside as the delay in filing returns and tax payment was not considered as suppression of facts to evade tax. The Tribunal modified the impugned order accordingly, affirming penalties under Sections 76 and 77 but setting aside the penalty under Section 78.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, while setting aside the penalty under Section 78, based on the appellant's actions regarding tax payment and return filing in response to the show cause notices.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 196
  

  Services of coaching centre - They paid tax @ 8% and filed the return accordingly. Later Service tax was enhanced from 8% to 10.2% w.e.f. 10-9-2004 by Finance Act, 2004. The differential amount of tax with interest were deposited by them on 24-11-2005 - appellant paid tax @ 8% and filed the return and therefore the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty is not sustainable – but penalty is imposable for delay in depositing differential amount of tax

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 195
  

  Penalty imposed for delay in payment of tax and filing of returns – delay of payment of tax and filing of return are due to interpretation of statutory provisions of law - Moreover Circular F. No. B.11/1/2002-TRU also clarified the matter in favour of assessee - In any event, the appellant paid the tax before issue of the show cause notice. Thus, the, imposition of penalties are not warranted

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 194
  

  Appellant submitted that service tax on whatever amount was paid by the assessee to their collaborators as ‘technical assistance fee’ for the technical assistance rendered by the latter in India was paid by them, but this aspect was overlooked by the revisional authority – appellant further pleaded that transfer of technical know-how was held to be not chargeable to service tax in the category of ‘consulting engineers’ service, in a plethora of cases - Stay granted

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 193
  

  Transfer of assessee’s case from Mumbai to New Delhi – petitioner, a member of U.P. Distillery Association (UPDA) – during search it was found that UPDA acted as nodal agency to made illegal payments to various public servants and politicians on behalf of distilleries situated in U.P. - there was sufficient material with revenue to prima facie show inadmissible expenditure by distilleries – revenue is justified in proposing to transfer the case after complying with procedural requirements

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 192
  

  SSI unit - whether the value of inputs (plastic film, plastic laminated film) manufactured & captively consumed in the mfg. of final goods (plastic pouches) was to be excluded from the aggregate clearance value – as per SSI Notification No. 8/98, the aggregate value of clearances of all the specified goods should be taken for the entire period not for segments of period – only after correct computation, one has to see as to whether the limit was exceeded or not – case remanded

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 191
  

  Includibility of fee paid for technical know-how and assistance to foreign supplier, in assessable value of imported goods - there was no relation whatsoever between the imported goods and payment of the technical licence fee - Further, it was not a condition of sale of the imported goods that the appellants should make use of the supplier’s technical know-how only – held that such technical know-how fee is not includible in the A.V. of imported good

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 190
  

  Appellants submission is that the service tax amount with interest has already been paid in terms of the impugned Order-in-Appeal and there are sufficient grounds for waiver of penalties – impugned plea is acceptable, so pre-deposit is waived – in respect of delay in filing appeal, appellant has given the sufficient cause for delay that appellant’s father had suffered heart attack – delay is condoned

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 189
  

  Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has noted that the “Register and Share Transfer Agent services” for tax purpose have come into effect from 1-5-2006 and hence the demand prior to this period is not sustainable - Revenue is seeking stay of the operation of this order - Prima facie, there is no infirmity in the impugned order - no merit in the stay application of revenue and the same is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 188
  

  Finalization of Provisional assessment - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Revenues appeals and directed that the lower authority should quantify both demand and refund invoice-wise without netting off and deal both quantities separately – held that entire monthly excess and short payment cannot be netted off to adjust excess payment against short payment - department’s contention is correct and the Commissioner’s order with regard to the correct procedure to be adopted is legal and proper

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 187
  

  CHA licence - no material produced by revenue as to why the petitioner’s licence was extended for 6 months only and not for further period - No material has also been produced by revenue which would render the petitioner ineligible for such licence – hence petitioner is entitled to interim protection - customs authorities are directed to extend the licence for a further period of 3 months at least on making of proper application and on payment of the schedule charges

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 186
  

  Deposits in cash exceeding the prescribed limit - explanation offered with reference to the deposits received by the assessee has been accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and also by the Tribunal - There is no material available on record for us to suspect or reject the transaction as not bona fide - Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271D by holding that the assessee did not contravene the provisions of section 269SS

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 185
  

  Registration - Petitioner applied for registration under the classification of “Business Auxiliary Service”, but Commissioner directed registration as clearing and forwarding agent - Revenue case is that since the order has been passed the petitioner ought to prefer an appeal against this order – petitioner contend that this order is not an appealable order – held that the writ petition has to be adjudicated upon after filing of affidavit - In the meantime, petitioners shall pay tax under BAS

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 184
  

  CIT in revision order directed AO to recompute the taxable income of the assessee by disallowing the expenditure on account of interest paid to partners– AO had taken one view which was possble – moreover, there whould be no tax effect as the interest income realised from the capital invested by partners was bound to be asessed in partner’s hands - merely on the basis that another view is possible the Commissioner cannot acquire revisional jurisdiction

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 183
  

  Wealth-tax - Revenue plea is that the order of the Commissioner’s appeal does not disclose any reason as to why the appeal was allowed on the issue of proportionate debts – If the appellate authority seeks to reverse the finding of the authority below, it was bound to give reasons to its conclusion so plea of revenue is correct - matter is remanded back to the Tribunal

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 182
  

  Petitioner, foreign company, non-resident - petitioner receives diamond grading & certification charges from Indian customers - Petitioner applied to AO to grant a certificate u/s 197(1) to receive impugned charges from customers without deduction of tax at source, which was denied by AO – since there is no transfer of technical skill etc. by petitioner & fees received do not fall within the expression “royalty” the action of AO in refusing the certificate u/s 195 was not in jurisdiction

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 181
  

  Advertising agencies - Revenue contention that certain elements pertaining to services rendered by them to another advertising company have not been added in the taxable income, is not acceptable – revenue submits that there was under-valuation of the taxable limits as seen from the income-tax returns – there is substance in applicant’s submission that the income Tax returns are on a different footing & they are not to be considered for levy of service tax – hence stay application is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 180
  

  Commissioner reduced penalty by invoking section 80 – delay in payment of tax – commissioner is justified in recording a finding that the major delay relates to initial months, namely September and October, 2004 when “banking and financial services” were included in the service tax net with effect from 10-9-2004 – but there was no reasonable cause for the delay after the initial period, therefore, some penalty was definitely required to be retained – appeal partly allowed

  ---

1 ....141516171819202122........ 27