|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 681 Records
-
2009 (6) TMI 987 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns of the Act by the Authorised Officer, such searches are invalid and illegal. No search was conducted against the assessee as the the premises occupied by the assessee were not entered upon and searched by the Authorised Officer. Considering the factual aspect which is based on the appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeals. In this view of the matter, appeals stand dismissed in limini for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 986 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and Caroe, 198 ITR 190 (Bombay). 2.In this view of the matter, the Appeal is devoid of substance. It is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 985 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - validity of order passed beyond the period of limitation - the assessee was engaged in agricultural activities in the name and style of M/s Bloosom Floriculture eligible to exemption u/s. 10(1) - failed to produce any bills/vouchers for agricultural income/activities -
Condonation of delay filing appeal - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that although the explanation given by the assessee may not be sufficient to condone the delay but the assessee may raise the legal issue as per r. 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.
The question of jurisdiction raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter and does not require further investigation into the facts, so we are of the view that the same is required to be entertained and decided. We are also fortified by the decision of the Tribunal, Lucknow Bench ‘B’ in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008 (2) TMI 900 - ITAT LUCKNOW].
We are of the confirmed view that plea taken by the assessee, vide which jurisdiction of the AO in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been challenged, deserves to be admitted.
From the provisions contained in the proviso to sec 275(1)(a) it is crystal clear that if an order is passed by the CIT(A) on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 then an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the CIT(A) is received whichever is later.
Here, CIT(A) passed the order on 11th March, 2005, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO in March, 2004 when the assessment order was passed on 23rd March, 2004. The learned CIT(A) had passed the order dt. 11th March, 2005 so the penalty order was to be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the CIT(A) was received by the AO. the appeal was filed by the Department in Tribunal in the month of May, 2005, therefore the order must have been received before the said date, hence the relevant financial year ended on 31st March, 2006, as such the penalty order was to be passed upto 31st March, 2007.
However, the AO has passed the penalty order levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on 20th April, 2007 therefore, the penalty order passed was barred by limitation and does not survive. Accordingly, the plea taken by the assessee is allowed.
We have quashed the penalty order for another reason i.e., by considering the limitation period as provided in proviso to s. 275(1)(a), in that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the Department.
-
2009 (6) TMI 984 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee has failed to indicate that these disputes had any effect because the business, accounting and tax proceedings were running smoothly. Therefore, the assessee’s plea is a general not supported by any evidence. 26. We have heard the rival contentions. We find merit in the argument of ld. DR. At no stage of proceedings any communication was given by assessee that the alleged dispute between families created any handicap. Learned counsel admits that the business operations were going on regularly. From the assessment and appellate proceedings, it emerges that they were promptly complied with. This being so, we are not impressed with the assessee’s justification for admission of additional evidence, which we refuse to admit. On merits, since there is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee, the ground of the assessee is dismissed. 26. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2009.
-
2009 (6) TMI 983 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... elied upon and referred to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra). The said case relating to claim of deduction made under section 32 as well as under section 35(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The Court held that having allowed cost of material asset used for scientific research relating to business of the assessee, it was impossible to conceive of the legislature having envisaged a double deduction in respect of the same expenditure by way of depreciation. No claim of two deductions has been made in this case. As noted earlier, application of income is a condition for allowing benefit of exemption to a charitable institution. It has nothing to do with computation of income and is hot a deduction. Therefore, the argument, that assessee is claiming double deduction, has no substance and is to be rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, we agree and confirm the impugned order of CIT(A). 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 982 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Application for Registration u/s 12AA - activity for charitable purpose in terms of Section 2(15) - “charitable purpose” charity is soul of the expression - CIT after examine the copies of the accounts and expenditure, held that assessee society is not carrying any charitable activity u/s 2(15), as it was in a profit making business and rejected the application - ITAT allowed the said application.
HELD THAT:- Clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 12 AA , makes it clear that the CIT is not supposed to allow the registration with blind eyes. We agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that mere imparting education for primary purpose of earning profits cannot be said to be charitable activity as interpreted by the Apex Court in MCD Vs. Children Book Trust [1992 (4) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT], we are unable to agree with the ITAT that since word “education” is not qualified in Section 2(15), as such, every application received by a society, who is engaged in the business of imparting “education” is bound to be registered under Section 12 AA. If that view is accepted in that case, CIT will be failing in its duty to comply the provision of law contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 AA.
In expression “charitable purpose” charity is soul of the expression. Mere trade and commerce in education cannot be said to be a charitable purpose. Thus, Appeal is allowed.
The order passed by ITAT is hereby set aside and order passed by CIT is restored.
-
2009 (6) TMI 981 - ITAT DELHI
Levy of Penalty u/s 271D - Nature of receipt of Share application money in cash - Applicability of provisions of ss. 269SS on receipt - CIT(A) deleted the penalty with regard to receipt for which addition was made by the AO u/s. 68 and he confirmed the balance penalty in connection with receipt of share application money in cash - contentions raised is that s. 269SS is not applicable on receipt of share application money in cash
HELD THAT:- We find that there are two judgments of two different High Courts available on this issue out of which one judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court is in favour of the assessee whereas the other Judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court is against the assessee. Under these facts, we have to decide as to which judgment should be followed by us, Under this situation, we are guided by Hon'ble apex Court and as per the judgment in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held by Hon'ble apex Court that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.
Respectfully following this judgment, we are of the considered opinion that we are bound to follow the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Rugmani Ram Raghav [2007 (7) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] because this judgment is in favour of the assessee and no judgment of Hon'ble apex Court or of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on the issue before us was brought to our notice. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit.
Once we hold and accept that receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit, the provisions of ss. 269SS and 271D are not applicable because the provisions of s. 269SS are in connection with acceptance of the loan and deposit and the provisions of s. 271D are in connection with violation of s. 269SS.
We, therefore, hold that since in the present case, the alleged amount was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty u/s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt is not governed by s. 269SS.
We therefore, delete the penalty. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 980 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... non-insecticidal purpose is permitted subject to an import permit being issued by the Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture. The writ petition is thus disposed of with the direction that the petitioner might import boric acid for non-insecticidal purpose in accordance with law by obtaining the requisite permit from the Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2009 (6) TMI 979 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of entry tax - bitumen, emulsion, which is a product manufactured from processing bitumen and certain other chemicals - entry serial No. l(viii) of Government Notification No. FD 11 GET 2002 dated March 30, 2002 as in annexure D?
-
2009 (6) TMI 978 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the factual situation, we find no reason to take a different view than the decision taken by this Court in Tax Appeal No.277 of 1999. Under the circumstances, we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. As regards Question B, matter has been elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal. In paragraph 3.3, much reliance was placed on the statement made by the assessee during search operation. Apart from that no material is supplied to show that the assessee had concealed an amount of ₹ 85 lakhs. On the other hand, assessee had filed returns stating his income to be ₹ 44,54,000/, for which the assessee had already paid tax. Therefore, in the absence of any material, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the assessee had concealed an income of ₹ 85 lakhs. Under the circumstances, Question B is also answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Consequently, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 977 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , 1944 / Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 / 2002 has been availed by way of refunds granted from time to time hence, involves the same inputs on which benefit under Rule 12 of the central Excise Rules, 1944 / Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 / Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules,2001/2002 has been availed and allowed by the appellants; and d) the Rule 5/AC(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No.35/2000CE (NT) dated 28.4.2006 / Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 11/2002 CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002 allows the credit availed on inputs to be refunded in cash only in case where the final products are cleared for export under Bond”. 2. Almost in similar facts and similar questions of law, we have decided Central Excise Appeal No.49 of 2005 today by giving detailed reasons. These Appeals are squarely covered by the same. Therefore, for the reasons given therein,we dismiss all these Appeals. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 976 - SC ORDER
Interpretation of statute - the decision in the case of HOME SOLUTION RETAIL INDIA LTD. Versus UOI & ORS [2009 (4) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that Section 65(105)(zzzz) does not in terms entail that the renting out of immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business of commerce would by itself constitute a taxable service and be exigible to service tax. But if there is some other service, such as air conditioning service provided alongwith the renting of immovable property, then it would fall within Section 65(105)(zzzz) - Held that: - issue os notice ordered.
-
2009 (6) TMI 975 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PUNE-II
... ...
... ... ..... t is not liable for any service tax. 5. Further as pointed out by the appellant/Advocate that the order suffers from so many infirmities. The SCN invokes penalty provisions of Section 78. Whereas the OIO dated 6-11-2006 imposed penalty of ₹ 1,000/- under Section 77 and again the present impugned OIO, against which the present appeal is filed, introduces a new section viz. 76 and imposes equal penalty in addition to imposing penalty of ₹ 2,000/- under Section 77 which all clearly show that the Assistant Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of the SCN without understanding the principle involved in the adjudication. On this count, penalty imposed in the impugned OIO is not sustainable. However, the question of penalty does not arise since the appellant has succeeded on merit. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned OIO passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ratnagiri Division.
-
2009 (6) TMI 974 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al turnover. Therefore, after a show cause notice, the Joint Commissioner imposed a duty of 71,587/-, after allowing 12 discount on free samples. 5. On appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that 40 discount was available on free goods and samples. On that basis the Appellate Commissioner came to the conclusion that the total turnover was within the exemption limit of 30 lakhs. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. 6. The Department filed a further appeal before CESTAT. The Tribunal dismissed the further appeal, compelling the Department to come up with the present appeal. 7. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, both the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal found on facts that the respondent was entitled to a discount on free samples and some other items. On these findings of fact, there is any scope hardly for this Court to interfere under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 973 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods - non-submission of documents - intent to evade tax or assessment - penalty - quantum of -
-
2009 (6) TMI 972 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.LT. 3 and in the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills & anr., 2009 (92) RLT 691 (SC). The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (6) TMI 971 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... determining the revenue implications and duty liability of a manufacturer under the law in force. Such implications and liabilities have to be construed strictly and within the four-corners of the provisions of law. Though in some of the present cases a challenge has been made to the validity of Section 153 of the Finance Act, such challenge had not been urged at the hearing. The Court, therefore, cannot go into the said question and must understand the challenge to have been abandoned. Unless the Court is in a position to examine the validity of Section 153 of the Finance Act, no opinion can be expressed on the said issue. 31. Consequently, the impugned orders are held to be legally sustainable. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case we, however, make no order as to costs. Naturally, the present order will not be understood to have foreclosed the remedy of the petitioners, if any, under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2009 (6) TMI 970 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this court in the case of C.I.T. V/s. D.K.Kondke reported in (1991) 192 I.T.R. 128. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 969 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ana Raja, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 968 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... granting any stay. Until otherwise the petitioner/appellant succeeds in the appeal the liability stands postponed. The stay petition is dismissed.
........
|
