Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (11) 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 401 to 420 of 658 Records

• 2007 (11) TMI 263
  

  Any assessee who had furnished a return u/s 139 (1) or 139(2), discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he can file a revised return at any time before the assessment was made. In this case, as the assessment had not been finalized, the assessee was well within his rights to file a revised return - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of sections 80HH & 80J even if it was not claimed in the original return, but claimed in revised return

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 262
  

  Discrepancy in respect of the quantities found in the containers, vis-a-vis those declared - discrepancies in quantity, admittedly, relate to an excess DEPB – hence DEPB entitlement of the exporters would have, therefore, to be reduced - hold that FOB value as declared on the invoices and PMV as declared on the DEPB declarations on record, are correct - allegations of deliberate mis-declaration of quantity & value are not proved – confiscation & penalty not justified – revenue’s appeal rejected

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 261
  

  Appeal by department - Authorization to file an appeal has to be issued by two Commissioners not by single commissioner - Therefore the authorization order and the appeal filed by the Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct - orders passed by both the authorities are not correct in law - Authorization Order signed by the Commissioner to file the appeal is not correct – present appeals are not maintainable – appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 260
  

  Assessee owned a bottling plant & manufactured soft drinks – assessee is an industrial establishment already set up but had launched a new product - assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 37(3D) in respect of the expenditure on advertisement and publicity incurred on launch of its new product - held that the settle (bottles) and crates in the assessee’s case do not constitute its stock-in-trade and should be treated as ‘plant’ – hence bottles & crates are entitled to depreciation as plant

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 259
  

  Petitioner’s name was entered in ‘Denied Entities List’(provision u/r 7, FTDR) mere on basis of communication received by DRI - effect of the name appearing in the ’Denied Entities List’ has civil consequences - case of the petitioner that they were not given an opportunity before their name was included in the list - requirement of Circular dated 31st December, 2003 was not satisfied - inclusion of the name of petitioner in list was without authority of law and the order has to be set aside

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 258
  

  Notification 177/86 restrict credit to specified inputs – validity of this notification challenged by assessee on ground that Central Govt. is not empowered to restrict credit to specified inputs but can only specify the final products & duty u/r 57A – held that Rule 57A can’t be regarded as extraneous to the statutory provisions which empowers the govt. to exclude some inputs - held that the notification was not in any way repugnant to the rule making authority u/r 57A – appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 257
  

  Attachment of property of wife for the default in payment of tax by her husband – as per sec. 222, attachment power of dept. is limited to the properties of assessee – dept. ought to have established that the said property is actually possessed or owned by the assessee in default by filing a civil suit – dept. not established that order of attachment & order of proclamation of sale issued by Tax Recovery Officer were wholly without jurisdiction – order were liable to be quashed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 256
  

  Capital Gains - transfer of shares - capital gains on transfer of shares in question is chargeable to tax under the Act, as it is deemed to accrue or arise in view of the fact that the capital asset is situated in India - applicant is held to be an agent of the non-resident (Jeff Slosar) in pursuance of the "inclusive provision" of section 163 - applicant has to keep in view the provisions of section 195 of the Act relating to tax deduction at source.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 255
  

  DR contended that the respondent cannot avail credit on defaced invoices and the adjudicating authority rightly held that the respondent would have availed credit only on a certificate issued u/r 57E - Rule 57E was applicable in cases where duty paid on any inputs was varied subsequently due to any reason resulting in payment of refund, or recovery of more duty from the manufacture or importer, which is not in the instant case - credit cannot be denied on mere procedural lapse

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 254
  

  Penalty for failure to file return in time - CIT(A) rejected the petitioner’s application filed u/s 273A, for waiver of interest u/s 139(8) & sec. 217 and penalty levied u/s 271(1)(a) & section 273(1)(b) - It is found in exhibit P11 that the petitioner had not made any payment of interest or penalty or made any arrangement for payment of the said sum, so there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order of CIT(A) – assessee’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 253
  

  Import of homoeopathic medicines through Patparganj, Delhi - Rule 43A of Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 indicates places of importation & in the present case, place of importation is Patparganj, which is not covered under the rule - Custom authorities confiscated the goods u/s 111(d) of Customs Act on ground of violation of Rule 43A – clearance of imported medicine other than place of importation as mentioned in Rule 43A is illegal – it is not mere technical lapse – confiscation is justified

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 252
  

  Assessee procured duty paid inputs & availed credit on them & used for the manufacture of goods on job work basis - Revenue contended that such credit is inadmissible, as an item cleared under job work basis are without payment of duty - held that clearance under the job work basis cannot be equated to as clearance without payment of duty, as these job worked goods were further utilized in the manufacture of dutiable final product - appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected – credit allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 251
  

  Sample test - test report conclusively shows that the item analysed did not conform to alloy steel as per the test certificate – out of four items sample was taken only of one item – held that test result could not have automatically applied to other three articles of serial no. 8 - respondent at no point of time admitted that the description in respect of other items was incorrect – confiscation of other three items, on basis of test report of sample of another one item is not justified

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 250
  

  Grinding Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM) lumps into powder for its customers and collected charges for the above service – ignorance of the scope of the new levy ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ under which grinding of DBM for a fee was classified by the department – assessee paid the service tax when it became certain about its liability – no suppression - sufficient cause shown - appellant deserves the benefit of the provisions contained in section 80 - penalty imposed u/s 76 is set aside

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 249
  

  Refund of the unutilized credit - refund claim rejected as the respondent exported the goods under advance licence scheme by which they were procuring duty free material - refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be denied unless the assessee claimed drawback or rebate – since assessee is not getting benefit of drawback or rebate, refund of unutilized credit is admissible - appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 248
  

  Return filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 – even where the assessee is called upon to file a return by a notice u/s148 of the Act by a fiction created by law, it would be deemed that the notice was issued u/s 139(2) – loss determined in reassessment proceedings – assessee would be entitled to carry forward the loss to the subsequent assessment year in terms of section 80 - question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 247
  

  Petitioner has a warehouse – importer didn’t cleared goods from warehouse within warehousing period - after getting permission from custom dept., petitioner sold the goods in auction to recover warehousing charges from auction proceeds – revenue plea that entire auction proceeds had to be first adjusted towards customs duty, is rejectable - Petitioner is not liable to pay custom duty which is recoverable from the importer, so he was justified in recovering warehousing charges u/s 63(2)

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 246
  

  Tribunal allowed credit on RFO (residual fuel oil) holding that restriction u/not. 14/97 shall not applicable to RFO – tribunal decided issue in favor of assessee relying on judgments in Camphor & Allied Products Ltd.’s case, and Surya Roshni Ltd.’s case – revenue has not given any reason why impugned two decisions were not applicable to present case - we have no option but to conclude, that these judgments do hold good – tribunal was justified - no question of law arises

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 245
  

  Cargo Handling Services – there is evidence to show that assessee were only supplying labourers to HLL and labourers were working under the control of M/s. HLL for handling the goods within the factory for shipment, etc - no infirmity in Commissioner (Appeals) following the Tribunal’s ruling in J&J Enterprises v. CCE - supply of labour will not come within the ambit of ‘Cargo Handling Services’

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 244
  

  Whether credit of duty is admissible to the inputs in the present case in terms of erstwhile Rule 57C and 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944, used in both dutiable as well as exempted goods when no separate account has been maintained nor 8% duty reversed – on basis of interpretation of Rule 57C and 57CC CEA in case of M/s Super Auto (I) Ltd., Faridabad, the question of law is decided against the revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee

  ---

1 ....171819202122232425........ 33