|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1054 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1232
Interest on excess refund under section 234D - assessment was completed under s. 143(3) on 20th Dec., 2004 determining the income-tax wherein interest under s. 234D was calculated only from 1st June, 2003 onwards and not from the date of issue of refund which was in March 2002 – Held that:- since s. 234D was inserted into the statute w.e.f. ast June, 2003, no interest under the said section is leviable from any earlier date, assessee is not liable to pay tax from the date of refund and the liability is only from ast June, 2003 when s. 234D came into force, decision in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2011 (2) TMI 1231
Writ petition - transfer pricing - Assessing Officer, while proceeding to frame the draft assessment order, has not kept in view the proviso to sub-section (3)(d) of section 92C of the Act - When the Transfer Pricing Officer had accepted the transfer pricing and had directed that no transfer pricing adjustment was required to be done, it was incumbent on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the same in letter and spirit and that being binding on him as per the provisions contained in section 92CA(4) of the Act - Held that:- liberty granted to the petitioner to file the objections within one week in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 144C, thereafter the Dispute Resolution Panel shall proceed in accordance with the postulates laid down in sub-sections (5) to (7) of section 144C of the Act, writ petition
-
2011 (2) TMI 1226
Writ petition - DEPB - conversion of free shipping bills into DEPB shipping bills - Respondents submitted that since on the date of taking up the applications of the Petitioner for consideration the Circular dated 16th January 2004 had already been issued, it was decided to reject the Petitioner’s claims – Held that:- claims of the Petitioner ought to have been accepted by the Respondents. It is not denied that the conversion of free shipping bills in question into DEPB bills was granted on 8th December 2003 itself. Therefore, even prior to the Circular dated 16th January 2004 conversion of the free shipping had already been granted. The claims of the Petitioner were only consequent upon such conversion. In any event the Circular dated 16th January 2004 was only prospective, writ petition is allowed
-
2011 (2) TMI 1221
Whether the equivalent amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be modified or altered by Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) without finding any fault on the quantum of demand duty confirmed by the adjoining authority – Held that:- penalty has been reduced from Rs.31,516/- to Rs.15,000/- which is impermissible, penalty also has to be the same amount, Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. Impugned order reducing penalty from Rs.31,516/- to Rs.15,000/- is quashed and set aside. Respondent shall make payment of Rs.31,516/- towards penalty
-
2011 (2) TMI 1219
Writ petition - Bail application - Extension of time for filing the chargesheet granted - petitioner was arrested on the allegation that he was found in possession of 34 grams of ecstasy tablets, 26 grams of MDMA, 17 grams of cocain and 6 ml LSD - no material has been placed in support of the contention that the Public Prosecutor did not apply his mind while seeking extensions for filing the chargesheet, bail application rejected
-
2011 (2) TMI 1218
Extension of time - offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii)(A), 21(A), 22(C) of the NDPS Act,1985 - applicant filed bail application seeking release on bail inter alia on the ground that the applicant was not heard before granting extension of time by learned NDPS Court - held that:- order granting extension of time was patently illegal, the learned Special Judge shall pass an order granting bail to the applicant on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper, applicant has been in custody from 9.1.2010, the learned Special Judge shall decide the application dated 1.11.2010 expeditiously and in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, applicant be released on interim bail till the application is decided by the Special Judge in terms of the order passed by this Court
-
2011 (2) TMI 1215
Applications seeking cancellation of bail - huge quantity of 25 Kgs. of Methampethamine was recovered from possession of accused nos.1 to 4 and prima facie it is shown that accused nos.5 and 6 were involved in transhipment and export of the said psychotrophic substance - Rule 66 also prohibits any person from possession of any psychotropic substance for any of the purposes covered by the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 unless he is lawfully authorised to possess a substance for any of the said purposes under the Rules - Held that:- It is not the case of the accused that they had any licence, permit or authorisation either to manufacture or possess or store the said psychotropic substance, huge quantity which is much beyond the limits of commercial quantity also and the revelation made during the investigation that accused no.3 was regularly dealing with export of psychotropic substances from India and that accused nos.1 and 2 were assisting him, no case is made out to grant bail to them, trial court committed serious error in granting bail to the accused persons and therefore, applications are allowed and the orders granting bail to accused are hereby set aside. The accused persons shall immediately surrender before the Special Judge, NDPS Act and they shall be taken in custody
-
2011 (2) TMI 1213
Opium - Accused persons filed applications for bail under Section 167(2) - at this stage, the entire quantity of 340 grams will have to be treated as opium derivative, which is a commercial quantity as per Entry 93 and therefore as per the provisions of Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act, the accused would be entitled to be released on bail only if charge sheet is not filed within 180 days after the arrest. The learned trial Court did not consider these aspects and committed error in holding that it was less than commercial quantity merely because the percentage of morphine was between 1.56% and 1.90%. - Counsel for the accused contended that when the trial Court has considered the material and granted bail, there should be very strong and exceptional circumstances to cancel the bail - . In the present case, the trial Court proceeded with the matter on the basis of wrong assumption and without properly looking to the provisions of law and particularly Entry 93 in the notification and committed error in holding that the accused are entitled to be released on bail if the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days. When the bail has been granted in clear contravention of law, this Court can certainly interfere. - Bail cancelled.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1211
Clandestine production and removal of finished goods - Calculation of production on the basis of power consumption - held that:- It is settled principle of law that adverse conclusion cannot be arrived at against an assessee based on presumption. It is the onus of the department to prove clandestine manufacture and removal of goods from the factory. In the entire period of dispute, spanning seven years, the department has not been able to lay hands on records or documents showing or suggesting clandestine production and clearance of the finished goods by the assessee in such a large scale as to warrant demands totaling about Rs. 10 crores. In the absence of evidence, we cannot sustain a finding of excess production and clearance involving the duty confirmed against the assessee. - As we have held that this norm is not an overriding benchmark which is reliable, the demands of duty confirmed in the orders impugned are set aside. Consequently, the demands of interest as well as penalties imposed are also set aside.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1210
Deductions under section 80-IB and under section 80HHC - When the deduction of profits and gains of an undertaking is allowed under section 80-IA, whether such profits and gains has to be deducted before computation of the profits and gains under section 80HHC or after arriving at the profits and gains of business - held that:- sections 80HHC and 80-I are independent of each other - Deductions in respect of certain incomes" are independent of each other and the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under more than one section, the deduction has to be necessarily in the profits and gains arrived at after making the claims in terms of the aforesaid section.
Though the Delhi High Court as well as the Kerala High Court have taken a contrary view of which reliance is placed by the Revenue, in the light of the express provisions contained in sub-section (a) of section 80-IA, clause (baa) to the Explanation to section 80HHC and the explanation in the circular referred to supra and keeping in mind the object with which these provisions are introduced we are of the view that the contention of the Revenue is unsustainable and the Tribunal has committed no illegality, in respect of cases where it had allowed the appeal. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1208
Revision application - Rebate - writ petition against the order of revision authority - double benefit - The contention of the petitioner is that one does not avail double benefit by merely including or claiming the Cenvat credit on inputs or on manufacture, when it is not utilized or is only partly utilized. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not claiming any benefit on account of utilized Cenvat credit and the rebate is claimed for the un-utilised Cenvat credit. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that non-utilization of Cenvat credit is entitled to rebate in Rule 18 read with Notification No. 41/2001 dated 26th June, 2001 - Held that:- in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 76123 - DELHI HIGH COURT), it has been held that Rule 18 as framed stipulates that rebate of duty paid can be claimed either on excisable goods which are manufactured and exported or on the inputs and not both. It postulates ‘either/or’ situation or should not be read as ‘and’. Thus, rebate on duty cannot be granted on exported goods and inputs simultaneously, Order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Revisionary Authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1205
Writ petition - Whether assessee is a Benaami owner of the property or not – It is wrong to presume that the will is erroneous and unjust to hold that the petitioner herself had acquired the property in the year 1967 - validity of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act upheld, petitioner is at liberty to raise all the objections which have been raised in the present petition before the authority concerned, Assessing Officer directed to pass re-assessment order under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years under consideration, writ petition is disposed of accordingly
-
2011 (2) TMI 1204
CHA - suspension of licence - grievance of the appellant is that, on account of the above suspension of licence by the Commissioner of Customs they are not able to carry on their business in other places where they did not commit any offence - Held that:- CHA should be allowed to carry on their business in those places where they have not committed any offence punishable under the CHALR, operation of the Commissioner’s order will stand stayed in so far as the appellant’s business in other places where they did not commit any offence
-
2011 (2) TMI 1202
Confiscation and penalty - Shortage of input and excess of finished goods - Assessee by its own volition reversed the input credit excise duty - finished goods were found in excess of the quantity mentioned in the books. There was violation of Rule 173Q(1)(b), there is no illegality in imposing the penalty or the redemption fine, authorities rightly held that there was violation of Rule 173Q, there is no illegality in the finding, all questions decided against the Assessee and in favour of the Department
-
2011 (2) TMI 1199
Exemption u/s 80G - application for renewal was rejected - in view of the Circular dated 3.6.2010 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, submitted that the recognition under section 80-G (exemption) having been already granted on 8.6.09, which was valid upto 30.3.2010, therefore, no renewal was required in terms of the aforesaid Circular, as the said exemption (recognition) under section 80-G would continue in perpetuity unless withdrawn, merely moving an application by the petitioner would not divest it of the aforesaid right, writ petition is disposed of accordingly
-
2011 (2) TMI 1198
Writ petition - reassessment - income escaped assessment - after receiving the impugned notices under s. 148 of the Act, all the petitioners had filed their replies enclosing copies of the returns raising objections for reassessment - writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all grounds available under law before the appellate authority, if the appeals are still pending. There shall be no order as to costs
-
2011 (2) TMI 1197
Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services - Stay petition - They have not registered themselves for rendering the said services and have not paid the service tax - findings of the original authority that the appellant was not educated and that the tax demand related to initial stages of levy on manpower recruitment services which got enlarged to include services of manpower supply later on - order of imposition of penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law, stay petition is also disposed of
-
2011 (2) TMI 1193
Provision for liability towards differential tariff payable to the KSEB - whether assessee was entitled to concessional power tariff debited the P& L account - as per dept assessee has no justification to debit P & L account merely because some arrear bills are received from the KSEB. Held that:- As Standing counsel submitted that genuineness or correctness of the bills itself should be doubted because KSEB did not raise the bills for the relevant year to which the liability relates - appeal allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsidering the developments that took place based on evidence to be produced by the assessee and in fact the ultimate settlement of liability which would have taken place in the course of the last eight years - appeal allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (2) TMI 1192
Interest received from deposits held with banks - income from business or from other sources - Held that:- As assessee has put up a new case before the Tribunal that under the R.B.I. directions the assessee, a non-banking financial company has to maintain bank deposits towards security - assessee has not put up such a case before the Assessing Officer when he proposed to assess interest on deposits as income from other sources - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- As it is not known whether the assess earned any income in trading of shares or in the purchase and sale of real estate - even if investments in shares yield dividends which being non-taxable interest on borrowed funds diverted for acquisition of such shares will not be eligible for deduction under Section 14A - neither the CIT(Appeals) nor the Tribunal have considered this issue properly - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (2) TMI 1191
Stay petition - steps of recovery initiated on the basis of Ext.P3 notice - Held that:- Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(a) stay petition filed along with the appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, recovery of the amounts covered under Ext.P1, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P3 notice, shall be kept in abeyance.
............
|
9911796707
