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 361 to 380 of 536 Records

• 2007 (12) TMI 179
  

  Whether the Hindu undivided family which is a partnership firm is entitled for remuneration since no individual partner is working on behalf of the partnership firm - For the assessment year 1993-94, the relief had been granted by the Tribunal to the assessee holding that a karta who is representing the HUF is entitled for remuneration under the partnership deed – since revenue’s appeal against that order was dismissed, impugned appeal is also liable to be dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 178
  

  Assessee challenge that notice u/s 148, could not have been issued by the Income-tax Officer. It could have been issued by an AO not below the rank of the Joint Commissioner – held that Income-tax Officer who was below the rank of the Jt. Commissioner & who is an AO, was empowered to issue the notice – Merely because revenue’s appeal against annulment of assessment is pending, it would not mean that assessment is pending – reassessment notice even during pendency of revenue’s appeal, is valid

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 177
  

  Return back of duty paid finished goods - duly recorded in register - alleged that appellant cleared duty paid returned after processing without payment of duty without following procedure u/r 16(1) & 16(2) – in spite that assessee was eligible to take credit on the duty paid return goods, appellant has neither availed credit nor paid duty on removal of re-processed goods, which is against the Law - Technical reasons for denying substantive benefit is not called for – matter remanded

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 176
  

  Appellant have not produced any piece of evidence to substantiate their claim for non-levy of service tax on the alleged services of housekeeping rendered by them - certificate of C.A has also not been produced for scrutiny - C.A’s certificate ought to have given break up of house keeping services furnished year-wise - assessee has not discharged their burden to seek benefit of non-levy of service tax on house keeping services – but in view of financial hardship, stay is partly granted

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 175
  

  Penalty - Held that the only one set of penalty can be imposed against either the Appellant Anil Kumar Mahensaria or the proprietorship firm - Tribunal was not correct in upholding the imposition of penalty on the proprietorship concern as well as on its sole proprietor Anil Kumar Mahensaria (Appellant) - since Mr. Anil Kumar Mahensaria is the Appellant before us, the penalty amount is required to be paid by him and not by the proprietorship firm

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 174
  
  Issues:
  1. Recovery of Cenvat credit and penalty for availing credit on inputs not used in manufacturing excisable goods.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order allowing the appeal of the respondents regarding the recovery of Cenvat credit and penalty for allegedly availing credit on inputs not used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing man-made yarn under the Cenvat credit scheme, cleared yarn after rewinding and repacking, using certain inputs for which they availed credit. The dispute arose when the Revenue contended that the processing of rewinding and repacking did not amount to manufacture, thus the credit on inputs used in such activities should not be allowed.
  
  The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand and penalty, holding that credit cannot be denied for inputs used in activities like reconditioning or remaking defective products during the manufacturing process. However, the appellate tribunal disagreed with this reasoning. The tribunal found that the rewinding and repacking done by the respondents did not constitute manufacturing but rather amounted to repairing the goods, for which credit on inputs is not permissible. The tribunal emphasized that the manufacturer is not entitled to credit for inputs used in repair activities as repair does not qualify as manufacturing under the Cenvat Credit Rules.
  
  Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order of the adjudicating authority, which confirmed the demand for recovery of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalty on the respondents. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed based on the principle that credit on inputs used for repair activities, such as rewinding and repacking, is not admissible under the Cenvat Credit Rules.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 173
  

  Import and trading of Digital Audio & music equipments – limitation – detention of goods – goods were seized for not producing proof of ownership & hence SCN was issued – petitioner plea is that SCN is time barred – held that seizure & detention are not same thing – limitation starts from date of seizure, not from date of detention – so SCN is not time barred - not a fit case where the goods should be ordered to be returned since the adjudication proceedings are pending before the department

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 172
  

  Show-cause notice was issued denying credit in respect of quantity of inputs on the ground that the inputs were not received - statutory record maintained in respect of the duty paid inputs such as RG-23 Part-I and II, the quantity of inputs were shown to be received in the factory - In absence of any evidence that the same quantity was received by the appellant from some other sources it cannot be held that the appellant had not received such quantities – credit allowable

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 170
  

  Tax wrongly paid on the commission got from foreign Co. through Indian railways under Business Auxiliary service - Rule 3 of Export of Services Rule, exempts export of service - contract reveals that the appellant would be paid USD equipment to non-convertible Indian Rupee at the Rate of Exchange prevailing on the date of supply order - equivalent amount of foreign exchange payable to the appellant was not released to the Indian Railways, so appellant complied with Rule 3(1)(b) – refund allowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 169
  

  Reopening of assessment - Held that:- From the reasons recorded and the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Revenue, it is seen that there are no reasons on the basis of which prima facie it can be said that income has escaped assessment. Although it is alleged that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, in fact the reopening is based on the facts which are already on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

  Thus the impugned notice cannot be sustained. W.P. allowed.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 168
  

  ITAT has already held that it was not a case of concealment of income and penalty imposed for concealment has been cancelled - When the matter has been adjudicated and settled by Tribunal, then petitioners need not be dragged into criminal court unless their act could have been described as culpable – assessee’s petition allowed - impugned orders passed by trial court as well as by revisional court are hereby set aside and prosecution of the petitioners pending is also quashed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 167
  

  Export of services of testing & inspection - In is un-disputed that the services which are rendered by applicant to foreign party is on the request of such foreign party for testing & inspection of the goods which are to be exported - entire issue requires a detailed consideration and evaluation of the law on the subject - issue has wider ramifications and may arise all over India, hence needs to be addressed urgently by the Tribunal - application for the waiver of the pre-deposit is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 166
  

  Once the assessment has been finalised it becomes an appealable order & in case if there is non-challenge of an appealable order then the question of challenging the correctness of assessment does not arise – demand raised in SCN without challenging the assessment order in appeal - Since demand cannot be raised without challenging the assessment in appeal, the plea whether Sec. 28 gives the power of review of assessment or not can be considered only at the time of final hearing – stay granted

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 165
  

  Revenue is aggrieved with the OIA by which the Comm. (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the Original Authority to take samples of the metallurgical coke & send it for re-testing to find out the exact nature of the goods imported - Commissioner has given a categorical reasons as to why the test reports are not acceptable - inspection certificate issued at the port of loading by various international agencies of repute cannot be brushed aside, so order of remand for re-testing is justified

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 164
  

  Assessee provide specialized services to bank in respect of promotion and marketing of home loans, personal loans and credit cards - held that this activity does not come within the ambit of Business Auxiliary Services, as the activity was brought within the category of “Business Support Services” w.e.f. 1- 5-2006 only - we allow the stay application granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying its recovery

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 163
  

  Enhancement of rate of duty – sales realization by the appellant consisted of assessable value + excise duty - appellant wants the amount recovered by them initially as the AV to be treated as cum duty price which is devoid of any logic – Dept. has correctly taken the entire sale proceeds as cum-duty price & worked backwards duty payable at 25% - interest payable shall be for the revised amount as arrived at by Asst. Commissioner on the basis of the Tribunal’s order

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 162
  

  Delay in payment of tax & filing of return - commercial or industrial construction - Service tax was newly introduced on this service - appellant voluntarily obtained registration and deposited the tax along with interest before issue of SCN - no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax - held that Section 78 cannot be invoked for imposing penalty – penalty u/s76 and 77 is upheld – appeal partly allowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 161
  

  Commissioner while imposing penalty have observed that the appellants had not adduced any reasonable cause for such failure to pay the tax before the adjudicating authority or before him and therefore, benefit of Section 80 cannot be granted - noticee was not aware of the levy of service tax on the consignment agent falling under the category of C&F agent, but got registered when came to know the levy of tax on them - failure on the part of noticee was not voluntarily – penalty is unsustainable

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 160
  

  Whether accumulated credit (not utilized) can be refunded – Not. 10/89 provides that the credit utilized on Poly Vinyl Chloride for payment of duty on textile fabrics shall not exceed Rs.3.50 per sq.mt., and the excess credit available under RG 23-A account shall not be refunded or adjusted – refund not allowed – appeal of assessee dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 159
  

  DEEC imports - Under Value Based Advance Licence Scheme, any inputs specified in licence could be imported duty free for the CIF value stated in licence - licensee is obliged to export the manufactured drugs to the value & quantity mentioned in the licence – since licence doesn’t mention CIF value of each input, discharge of bond can’t be denied on ground that individual input under separate licences ought to have been imported– discharge of bond is allowed as export obligation is fulfilled

  ---

1 ....151617181920212223........ 27