Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2011 2011 (10) 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 381 to 400 of 590 Records

• 2011 (10) TMI 369
  

  Deduction under 80G - Assessee charitable and religious trust - Exemption denied under Sec 11(1) as 85% amount set aside not used for purpose of accumulation - Tribunal: Donation collected from Rural Project Fund is in nature of capital receipt directly forming part of Corpus Fund , non-spending of 85% of such capital fund cannot be said to be non-spending of 85% of the income of the trust - Held That:- Donation were received with a specific direction that it is meant to use for the Leprosy patients - even for contributions in cash oral directions has been received which is in compliance with Section (1) (b) of the Act. It is too late in the day for the Commissioner for Directorate of Income Tax (exemptions) to ignore all these undisputed facts which are available in the record and to refuse to renew the registration. Decided in favour of assessee.

  Unfortunate litigation - held that:- Unfortunately, the persons who took a decision to file an appeal, before this Court are wasting the precious time of the trust which could have been used in the social service. Public money and the time of this Court is also wasted. This attitude on the part of the department cannot be countenanced. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to impose cost incurred by the assessee for fighting litigation so that the department would be more careful in future in taking decision to file appeal in such frivolous cases by ignoring the policy of the Government, viz., National Litigation Policy, 2011. - Cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- - Department to deposit the amount in favour of the Rural Project Fund of the assessee-trust.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 364
  

  Cenvat Credit - Capital goods destroyed - Insurance claim received - Revenue contended incurance claim is cum duty - Held That:- there cannot be a demand for duty in absence of removal/destruction. In this case, as already observed, there is no evidence to show that the capital goods have been destroyed or removed. When the capital goods have not been destroyed/removed and are in the factory and are in use, CENVAT Credit taken cannot be demanded. In this case, it is not because of non-use of capital goods that the CENVAT Credit that is being demanded but due to the fact of insurance claim amount received by the appellant. Treating it as cum duty amount, duty has been demanded. In this case, the demand has been made under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The first element that has to be shown for such demand is the fact that the CENVAT Credit has been taken and input/capital goods have not been used in accordance with the rules. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 363
  

  Cenvat Credit on various input services - Held That:- Tribunal in (2011 -TMI - 210543 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), has held that CENVAT Credit in respect of service tax paid on outdoor catering service, air travel service, tour operator service, business exhibition service, photography service, repair of motor car, have been held to be admissible.

  Service tax relating to personal accident policy, group accident personal policy, outdoor catering service and insurance - Held That:- In view of CCE Raipur Vs H.E.G. Ltd (2010 -TMI - 78932 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) credit allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 362
  

  Dutiability - Cotton yarn for use in handloom are exempted but in other forms like Corn, Cheese excise duty is payable - Investigation reveled assessee has cleared such goods as corn, chease - Show cause issued demanding duty, interest & mandatory penalty imposed - Appellant argued that Commissioner relied on statement of third party namely buyer - Held That:- When appellant has failed to furnish any evidence no merit in filing appeal before first and second appellate authority. - If the uncontroverted statement of the purchaser of the goods is taken to be correct, the case against the appellants stands proved

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 361
  

  Pre Deposit of penalty pending appeals - Excise officer visited factory and found Stock not accounted in RG-1 - Cenvat credit amounting to Rs 3,80,000 was found short - appellant paid sum during investigation - AO leveid Penalty - Held - Pre-deposit of penalty imposed on the appellant and the Managing Director is waived and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeals.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 356
  

  Confiscation - Assessee imported Old Machines - Goods inspected by Chartered Engineer, Correct in quantity and description but some difference on account of "value" - Non release of subject good on account of e-waste - Held That:- Consignment reached the port on 06.09.11 till that date no show cause notice issued thus it is not permissible to treat the imported goods as restricted goods. Department is running contrary to Section 17 which entitles importer to examine, assess and clear goods without undue delay. Section 18 enables provisional assessment pending production of documents in the present case, all the documents have been furnished that are necessary for processing and assessing the Bill of Entry and ordering the release of goods of the petitioners. Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 355
  

  Power of Tribunal for waiver of pre-deposit - Commercial training or coaching services - Revenue argued tribunal granted stay without considering undue hardship case remanded for de novo consideration - Property attached worth ₹ 27 crore further liability denied as assessee charitable institution - interest of revenue secured - Held That:- Considering the interest of Revenue and the hardship, we direct that the respondent shall deposit 1/3 rd of the amount of service tax and penalty, which comes about ₹ 80.00 crores as pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the 1944.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 354
  

  Review petition - first respondent not registered under Service tax has not produce any document and no refund application thus Writ not maintenable - Second respondent filed refund claim but dismissed as it was time barred - Order passed on 22nd May, 2010, not brought to notice before court - Held That:- The act in which the review Petitioner functions is a self contained code. Second Respondent even after knowing that the refund application was rejected as time barred did not bring it to the notice of the Court. Order suffers from error. Review application has to be allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 350
  

  Classification - 3D Mouse Emulation under heading "CTH 84716060" OR "CTH 84799090" - Held That:- Heading 84716060 specifically mentions 'mouse' - merely because the said mouse is bigger in size and costlier than the ordinary mouse and also performs other specific functions, the same cannot be held to be a device other than the mouse. Thus classified under CTH 84716060.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 349
  

  Classification - imported fabrics are "flax" or "Ramie fabric" - assessee requested for retesting of goods - Held That:- When the first test is done by Textile Committee respondents are directed send to retained sample to the Textile Committee, directed to communicate the results as expeditiously as possible. Writ disposed.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 348
  

  Credit of duty paid on raw materials cleared as 'Scrap' – Held that:- In the present case, Raw material is being tested before the same is accounted for by stores department. Certain material which is contaminated is cleared as scrap. In these circumstances, the raw material on which credit has been availed is not used for in or in relation to the manufacture of final excisable goods, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for credit on such quantity of raw material. Hence, order imposing demand alongwith interest is confirmed. - Decided against the assessee.

  In respect of penalty, assessee filed necessary declarations thus, no suppression with intent to evade duty can be alleged against the assessee. Thus, order whereby the penalty is set aside is upheld. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 347
  

  Appellant manufacturer of casting of Iron & Steel - Availed GTA Services - Revenue argued recipient are not GTA thus cannot utilize the Cenvat Credit for payment of service tax on Goods - Held That:- In view of Shri Tubes & Steels (2010 -TMI - 208724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) the appellants are entitled to pay service tax through Cenvat Credit account for the period prior to 19.4.2006 and thus appeal prior to 19.4.06 are allowed and thereafter in cash.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 346
  

  Appeal - Tribunal rejected revenue plea on account of procedural irregularity - appeal signed as well as filed by commissioner - Held That:- Said amendment in Section 35B was effective from 13.05.05 however the appeal signed by commissioner on 19.04.06 being no irregularity, case remanded back to Tribunal for fresh perusal.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 345
  

  Stay petition - remission of duty - Held That:- When the order of original adjudicating authority is in favour of assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) is hearing the appeal in favour of department, Commissioner is bound to give findings on the various proposals in the show-cause notice. - Matter remanded back.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 341
  

  TDS u/s 194C - sponsorship versus contract - Assessee carried various summits, seminar conference in field of management - Payments made towards printing/ purchase of stationery and advertisement expenses - Assessee replied that under 194C individuals are not covered - AO treated him as contractor and relied on 194C(2) - CIT(A) further disallowed auditorium hire charges & stage erection charges on account of non deduction - Held That:- Payments associated with organization of conference cannot be said to be towards sub contract work. Since events have conceptualized first and then came sponsorships 194C(2) is not attracted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 337
  

  Liability to pay interest u/s 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the differential amount of duty paid by assessee under supplementary invoices issued after the clearance of the goods - supplementary invoices issued for recovery of differential price and for payment of differential duty – interest levied from the date of clearance of the goods to the date of payment of differential duty – Held that:- The issue stands in favor of the Revenue. See Commissioner Vs. SKF India Ltd (2009 - TMI - 34092 - Supreme Court), Commissioner Vs. Presscom Product (2011 - TMI - 207372 - Karnataka High Court).

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 336
  

  CENVAT credit in respect of MS angles, plates, sheets, rods, etc., treated as 'inputs' by assessee used for strengthening/maintenance of old structures and also for fabrication of capital goods – Held that:- The matter is remanded to the original authority for considering all the relevant aspects viz to examine whether MS angles, sheets, etc., qualified to be 'capital goods' in terms of any ruling of the apex court, whether the above items could alternatively be regarded as 'inputs' in terms of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to consider earlier orders of adjudication in favor of assessee relied by him and lastly, the competent authority to ascertain the basic facts of the case is the original authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 335
  

  Entitlement of modvat credit of service tax paid on freight and handling charges (outward) paid to the Container Corporation of India and in respect of services of clearing agency - 100% EOU – refund claimed - Held that:- In view of Board's Circular No.97/8/2007-ST dt.23.8.07 and various decisions it is held that in case where export is on FOB basis, place of removal shall be load port and price included the transportation charges from the factory to load port. Inasmuch as the place of removal is load port, the charges incurred upto that area would be entitled to be considered as input service in terms of Rule 2 (1) (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and as such is available for credit. See CCE & Service tax Bangalore vs ABB Ltd. & others (2011 - TMI - 203985 - Karnataka High Court) – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 331
  

  Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services availed for transporting employees to factory premises – Held that:- The issue is no more res integra. Service of transportation of employees to the factory is admissible for credit as input service under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. See CCE, Chandigarh-II vs. M/s.Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd (2011 - TMI - 206654 - Punjab And Haryana High Court) – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 330
  

  Cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plants and machineries in factory– Held that:- Various judgements of High Courts have held that Cenvat credit can be availed on welding electrodes which are used for maintenance of plant and machinery. See Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur (2010 - TMI - 77888 - Chhaitisgarh High Court ) - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

1 ....161718192021222324........ 30