|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1191 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1438
Whether subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as capital receipt and the same is not taxable - assessee pointed out that by mistake, it had treated the power subsidy receipt from the Pondicherry Government as revenue receipt instead of capital receipt - assessee claimed subsidy received as a capital receipt Held that:- the subsidy granted was on the power consumption in the manufacturing activities and not for setting up of the industry. - assessee is not entitled to have the receipt treated as a capital receipt, order of the Tribunal set aside, receipt of subsidy is revenue receipt and not as capital receipt [Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (1997 - TMI - 5620 - SUPREME Court)]
-
2011 (3) TMI 1437
Reopening of assessment - usance interest - assessment of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1994-95 is sought to be reopened by issuing the impugned notice on the ground that the petitioner had paid the usance interest amounting to Rs. 63,18,925 on purchase of ships and had not complied with the provisions of s. 40(a)(i) of the Act Held that:- by virtue of Expln. 2 to s. 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Act, which has been made retrospectively effective from 1st April, 1962, usance interest payable outside India by an undertaking engaged in the business of ship-breaking in respect of purchase of ship from outside India is deemed to be interest payable on debt incurred in a foreign country in respect of the purchase outside India and as such the same cannot be included while computing the total income of the petitioner, petition succeeds and accordingly it is allowed - notice issued under s. 148 of the Act quashed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1436
Revision Application - drawback claim of goods re-exported under DEPB Shipping Bill was rejected by the lower authorities Held that:- goods were re-exported under DEPB Shipping Bill and drawback is claimed, of duty paid on their importation through DEPB Scrip, C.B.E. & C. Circular 75/2000-Cus., dated 11-9-2000 stipulates that in such cases the DEPB credit will be admissible to the export subject, to fulfilment of laid down conditions. As such there is no case for grant of duty drawback as no cash duty was paid and for debit of DEPB, on importation of goods, he will get credit in DEPB scrip only, order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly legal and proper and same is therefore upheld, revision application is rejected being devoid of merit
-
2011 (3) TMI 1435
Waiver of pre-deposit - Cenvat credit - credit disallowed on the capital goods on the ground that the capital goods in question were exclusively used for manufacture of non-dutiable intermediate product and have no relation with the manufacture of the final product Held that:- order does not disclose that the department was totally unaware of the fact that the appellants were availing the credit in relation to the duty paid on the capital goods even though same were not utilized for the manufacture of the final product and that the same were utilised in relation to the exempted intermediate product, demand prior to 17-2-2008 is prima facie time barred, appellants to deposit the amount in relation to the credit sought to be availed on or after 17-2-2008 till October 2008.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1434
Limitation - revenue contended that, as a case of suppression of true facts while filing the returns and claiming exemption is made out, the period applicable is five years and not one year as wrongly held by the Tribunal - demand is issued on the ground that the exemption is wrongly claimed. The assessee contends that exemption is applicable to the transaction in question, whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under the notification is a matter which falls within the phrase determination of rate of duty payable, which, only the Apex Court is competent to decide in an appeal filed under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded, appeal is rejected
-
2011 (3) TMI 1433
Revision petition - suppression in purchase and sales - whether interest is charged on penalty levied under Section 17(5A) of the Act which is the levy made as a result of the revised order issued under Section 19(1) of the KGST Act in modification of the original order issued under Section 17(4) of the Act Held that:- Assessing Officer directed to examine the correctness of the revised order in regard to the levy of interest based on rectification application to be filed by the Petitioner, Petitioner is also free to settle liability including interest on penalty under the Amnesty Scheme
-
2011 (3) TMI 1432
Whether Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing, under Explanation 4-A below Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, the claim by the assessee amounting to Rs.1,59,13,750/- and the sale and lease-back transaction in the facts and circumstances of the case is liable to be held as dubious - Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation @ 100% claimed by the assessee on the ground that the transactions between Rajasthan State Electricity Board, ITC, Bhadrachalam Finance and Investment Limited and the assessee were not genuine transactions - Held that:- transactions were genuine transactions and the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing claim of depreciation, decision in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, Tribunal was right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 1431
Voluntary Disclosure of Income - petitioner has been informed that since he has not paid the tax as required under section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1997 (the Act) in respect of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income within the stipulated time, his declaration furnished under section 65(1) of the Act, is treated as being never to have been filed under the Scheme and refusing to issue the certificate under section 68(2) of the Act Held that:- assessees are not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme since the payments made by them were not in terms of the Scheme, Revenue authorities to refund or adjust the amounts already deposited by the assessees in purported compliance with the provisions of the Scheme to the concerned assessees in accordance with law, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme since the payment was not made in terms of the Scheme, the respondent authority is directed to either refund or adjust the amount of Rs.4,74,584/- already deposited by the assessee in purported compliance of the provisions of the Scheme, in accordance with law
-
2011 (3) TMI 1430
Whether the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that since amount has been taxed in the regular assessment made under section 143(3) it should not be taxed on protective basis in the block assessment Held that:- Tribunal has deleted the addition which had been made on a protective basis only on the ground that the said amount had been added in the regular assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1993-94. It is an admitted position that against the regular assessment order made under section 143(3), the assessee had preferred appeal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the addition made on a protective basis without ascertaining the outcome of the addition which was made on a substantive basis Whether the appellate tribunal is right in law in holding that to the entries in the books of account of the assessee, provisions of section 68 are not attracted Held that:- Tribunal had erred in not appreciating that the entries were self-serving entries purporting to explain the source of cash credit and could not have been treated as explained, Tribunal has not recorded any factual findings and has accepted the claim of the assessee merely on the basis of the entries in the bank accounts of the parties, maintained by the Indian Bank. This Court is of the view that without recording any findings of fact in connection with the said issue, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act
-
2011 (3) TMI 1428
Benefit of tax under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 10A provides for a deduction from the total income of profits derived by an undertaking from the export of articles of things or computer software for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The tax holiday period commences with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce such articles or things or computer software. Section 10(2) prescribes certain conditions on the fulfillment of which the benefit of 10A could be availed Held that:- benefit of Section 10A would also be available even when an existing unit gets converted into a STPI unit, no export of computer software was made before 04.08.2004. The export commenced only after 04.08.2004, appellate authority as well as the tribunal were justified in extending the benefit of Section 10A to the unit in question, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1427
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale or purchase of goods can be said to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and thereby exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 -"sales agreement" between the parties which was entered into some time in the year 1979 and the same was to expire some time in the year 1984. Under this agreement, UIL had agreed to purchase the products manufactured by the assessee and sell it as an independent principal. The assessee has its godown in every State including Delhi. The UIL has also its divisional office in different names at every place wherever the assessee's godown is located Held that:- assessing officer, in his detailed and well considered order, has looked into nearly 378 documents and voluminous correspondence between the assessee and UIL and has discussed and co-related the documents to prove on facts that the disputed transaction is inter-State sales though the assessee claims that it is a mere stock transfer, transactions in question were inter-State sales taxable under the Central Act, no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1426
Acquisition proceedings u/s 269C - held that:- Merely because the certificate under s. 230A of the Act was issued, it cannot be held that the option of the IT Department to compulsorily acquire this land stood foreclosed.
Coming now to the argument about not giving opportunity to cross-examine the DVO, we have to consider as to what role the DVO has to play. According to s. 269C r/w s. 269F, the Valuation Officer is merely called upon to determine fair market value of a particular immovable property. He merely acts as an expert and adviser to the Competent Authority for the purpose of enabling such Competent Authority to determine fair market value of the property firstly at the stage of initiation of proceedings and finally at the time when he has to decide the question whether property has to be acquired under s. 269F. - no prejudice was caused to the assessee by mere fact that he could not cross-examine the DVO.
Argument that valuation of the land in the hands of transferor Jai Marwar Company (P) Ltd., Jodhpur has been accepted by the IT Department, cannot be upheld because the Tribunal by its order dt. 8th Nov., 2002 has merely held the assessment order for asst. yr. 1985-86 as invalid on the ground that since sale deed was executed on 1st Feb., 1982, the capital gain can be assessed in asst. yr. 1982-83 and not in asst. yr. 1985-86. It is thus evident that the Tribunal without final determination of valuation of the land and the capital gain thereon, simply deleted such addition for the asst. yr. 1985-86. It cannot therefore be said to have given finality to valuation of land submitted by the transferor.
Amount received as service charges - So far as assessee is concerned, said amount was receivable as service charges from construction company in question in the previous year relevant to assessment order under reference. - There is no reason to hold that it was not includible in assessee's income. The allowance or disallowance of the same in the hands of the payer is of no relevance in deciding the taxability of the same in the hands of the recipient.
The present matter does not fall in any of five categories enumerated in para 52 above and, therefore, we answer all the four questions of law enumerated in para 6 of this judgment in affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1425
Exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Scope of the word "education" used in Clause 15 of section 2 of the Act of 1961 - application of the petitioners filed under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been rejected Held that:- objects mentioned in the memorandum of association of the society are correlated with the education and the petitioner-society exists solely for the purpose of education. It has not entered into any business in the relevant period, neither it diversified its fund for any other purposes, application of the petitioner-society has been rejected at threshold without considering the activities of the society, petitioner society has not used the amount and income for any other business activities, order passed by the authority is illegal and against the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act 1961, petition of the petitioners is allowed, application filed by the petitioner for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act of 1961 is hereby accepted
-
2011 (3) TMI 1424
Writ Petition By order, the State Chief Information Commissioner has directed the Public Information Officer of the Raipur Development Authority to supply the information in the form of order sheets and note sheets and has also directed certain steps to be taken Held that:- direction is completely outside the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner. The purpose and object of the Act is disclosure of information and not to issue command to public authorities to take action in a given case, having no relation to disclosure of information under the Act. Therefore, to that extent, the order of the Chief Information Commissioner is apparently, in excess of the jurisdiction and authority vested in it under the law, and is therefore, set aside, petition is allowed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1423
Whether Tribunal right in law in holding that the assessee was not required to have paid the duty as they were exempted from paying the duty as the classification of the product was held in favour of the assessee Held that:- benefit was denied only on the ground of non-compliance with the Rules and coupled with the fact that the delivery notes is not the satisfied document, Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., dated 23-2-1999 issued by the Board coupled with the fact that the very liability is exempted by virtue of the notification, the said substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, appeals dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1422
Writ-application - whether stores and spare parts for plant and machinery used for manufacturing taxable goods would fall within the meaning of 'consumable stores' as used in Section 22(4) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("Vat Act") for the purpose of claiming Input Tax Credit - Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondents that spare or spare parts or machine parts would be considered for ITC only if it can be established that those are required for the purpose of manufacturing and used or to be used in the operative machineries during the process of manufacture of the finished product Held that:- stores including the goods or spare parts of the machinery used for the purpose of the manufacture of the taxed goods which are decayed and require replacement should come within the purview of the words "consumable stores" within the meaning of the Act and that it is not necessary that those stores must be mixed up with the ultimate taxed goods. At the same time, those stores which are not decayed or do not require replacement for such decay would not come within the purview of sub-rule (d) of section 22 (4) of the Act and the order of the Tribunal is modified only to that extent, writ-petitioners that the learned Tribunal below made wrong interpretation of the phrase "consumable stores" and wrongly granted benefit to the respondents, writ-application disposed of
-
2011 (3) TMI 1421
Revision Application - goods re-exported under claim of duty Drawback under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 on the reason that these were found defective after clearance Held that:- Once, it is proved that, the market price of any goods is less than the amount of Drawback dues, the Drawback may be rejected in terms of Section 76. Applicant had declared the value of goods as no commercial value, market price of goods found to be less than Drawback claimed, and hence the Appeal was rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority, Revision Application is rejected being devoid of any merit
-
2011 (3) TMI 1420
VAT / Sales tax on sale of scrap - whether sales tax is leviable and payable on the articles at four per cent as the plant and machinery was sought to be sold as scrap or whether the respondent is liable to pay sales tax at 12 per cent with five per cent surcharge also - appellants has submitted that what was sold was plant and machinery and not scrap at the agreement stage as is indicated from the acceptance letter and that it is only subsequently and during the post-contract period only, the said plant and machinery was removed as scraps after dismantling them and dividing the articles into several lots and taking away the same by getting 100 gate passes and challans issued Held that:- plant and machinery had outlived its utility and had no value except as scrap, respondent has paid sales tax and surcharge at the higher rate of 12 per cent and five per cent while taking the goods out of the factory premises, respondent becomes entitled for refund of overpaid amount, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1419
Conviction of the appellant accused under Section 20(b) read with Section 8(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - recovery of 17.5 Kg. of ganja leaves Held that:- evidence does not demonstrate that the contents of sample packets (articles 1/2 and 1/3) before the court were analyzed by him for the purposes of forensic investigation. The mystery about the identity of the contraband and the samples is further compounded by the discrepancy in the outward numbers found recorded on the forwarding memo Exh.16 and Exh.19, and the failure of the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence the movement of the samples with reference to the muddemal register. In result the, the prosecution case fails and appellant accused deserves to be given the benefit of doubt, appeal is allowed. The appellant accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 20(b) read with Section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and is ordered to be set at liberty unless required in any other case, Criminal Application does not survive and same is disposed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1417
Seizure of goods - Provisional release - petitioner imported scrap under the Open General Licence Scheme in February, 2011 Held that:- respondents submits that Show Cause Notice is proposed to be issued under Section 24 and pending consideration, though there is no objection to order of provisional release being passed under Section 110A of the Act, such an order could be passed only after an application was moved and not otherwise, respondents directed to pass an order of provisional release, petition is disposed of
............
|
9911796707
