Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (7) 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 678 Records

• 2007 (7) TMI 284
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure for issue of debentures and fixed deposits is a revenue expenditure – Held, yes because expenses relating to obtaining fixed deposits are closely linked with the business requirement of the assessee - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that stand by assets which are not put to use during the relevant year are entitled to depreciation – Held, yes

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 283
  

  Claim for deduction u/s 80HHC - assessee has failed to attach audit report u/s 44AB along with return – but assessee has filed the tax audit report later - Tribunal reversed the view taken by the AO and the CIT (A) by holding that the assessee was not a company nor a co-operative society whose accounts were separately required to be audited under the Act. This is a case of an individual and tax audit is required under clause (BB) of the Explanation to section 44AB which was eventually filed and furnished – consequently tribunal rightly held that assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80HHC

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 282
  

  Assessee received compensation under the voluntary retirement scheme - eligibility to claim simultaneous benefit u/s 10(10C) as well as section 89(1) - held that the notions of equity do not apply in taxing statutes. If the assessee is entitled to two different benefits on the plain language of the statute, he has to be granted both those benefits. - there is no prohibition to the twin benefits in respect of the amount received under the voluntary retirement scheme - relief contemplated u/s 89(1) is aimed to mitigate the hardship that may be caused on account of the high incidence of tax due to progressive increase in tax rates and thus held that the benefit under sections 10(10C) and 89(1) could be granted to the assessee

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 281
  

  Additions u/s 69C – unexplained expenditure - there is nothing to show that the expenditure was in fact incurred by the assessee - Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry whatsoever to find out whether such expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee - Since a part of the expenditure related to advertisements in newspapers, it could have been easily verified by the Assessing Officer, but he did not do so– additions not justified - No substantial question of law arises – revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 280
  

  Method for valuation of closing stock - Assessing Officer held that the assessee could not explain the basis on which cost method was adopted and, therefore, made certain additions - held that since the assessee had been consistently adopting the cost method for valuation of closing stock, which has been accepted by the Revenue on earlier occasions also and that the method was in accordance with the well-accepted accounting principles, the Tribunal was right in deleting he additions

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 279
  

  This issue as to where the deemed exports has to be included for the purpose of determining entitlement in the DTA - the clearances made by the respondent are clearly within the permissible limit of DTA sales as permitted by the Development Commissioner. - We find that the raw materials were admittedly issued for manufacture in the 100% EOU and no raw materials as such has been diverted and hence demand of duty on the raw materials is not sustainable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner in not demanding the duty on the raw materials which have gone into manufacture of finished products/wastes and rejects, which have been sold in DTA with the permission of the Development Commissioner.

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 278
  

  Applicant is engaged in the manufacture of cement - appellant had irregularly availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid on various “input services” in contravention of Rule 2(1) read with Rule 2(m), Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – applicant removing bulk cement to an outside packing station u/not. 15/99-C.E. – stay granted partly

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 277
  

  Management Association of various members conducting various Diploma/Certificate Programmes - demand of service tax under the category of “Commercial training or coaching services” and “services by club or association” and under “Convention services” - appellant submits that as a charitable trust, they are working on ‘No Profit, No Loss’ basis; whatever profit made is used only for the purposes of association and therefore, they are not subjected to service tax - case is an arguable one - applicant has not made out a strong case for total waiver of the dues – stay granted partly

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 276
  

  Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - AO held that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of making a wrong claim of share trading loss against normal income – since assessee filed full details of the sale of shares, he did not conceal any particulars of income – mere treatment of the business loss as speculation loss by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income – penalty not imposable

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 275
  

  Concealment of income - section 271(1)(c) – penalty - it is not possible to hold that the non-filing of return by a previously assessed assessee amounts to concealment - penalty can not be imposed for concealment when the non-filing of return by an assessee who had been assessed for several assessment years prior to the assessment year in question, that is, 1984-85

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 274
  

  Fact that assessee have taken re-credit of the entire amount in CENVAT account, was not brought to tribunal’s notice when tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit – held that assessee cannot claim undue advantage of duel benefits viz. the benefit of waiver, and stay of recovery and the self-availed benefit of CENVAT credit

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 273
  

  Application for condonation of delay in filing stay petition and appeal - delay has taken place due to closing down the business due to financial crisis and also employee left the jobs including an employee dealing with Excise and Service Tax matters - having convinced that there exists sufficient cause which prevented the appellant in filing the appeal, delay is condoned - application is allowed.

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 272
  

  Interest on delayed refund – relevant date - LB decision in the case of Rama Vision Ltd. is applicable herein where it was held that interest required to be paid from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application till date of refund - held that respondent filed documentary evidence in respect of refund claim on 13-12-1999, they will be eligible to get interest with effect from 30-3-2000 onwards till the date of payment of refund amount

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 271
  

  Penalty - Security Agencies - service tax liability had not been discharged on gross value – but appellants paid the amount even before the adjudication order was passed - held that once the Deputy Commissioner exercises his discretion conferred on him under section 80 to drop the proceedings, it is not open to Review Authority to impose penalty on them - there is enough justification for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 270
  

  Excess payment of duty - Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the tribunal to consider the report of the cost accountant and then to dispose off by the appeal in terms of the grounds raised in the appeal - order of Supreme Court of remanding the case to tribunal was not limited to any specific term of remand – therefore, if appellant raise content ion that there was excess payment, tribunal is bound to frame the question and answer the issue – appeal before HC is maintainable

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 269
  

  Whether in the absence of provisional assessment, duty paid in excess can be adjusted against duty short paid, especially when the refund claim of excess duty is otherwise time barred – since no such issue was raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, adjustment as ordered by Tribunal would not give rise to any question of law – further, since revenue not raised any argument before Tribunal that credit would not be allowed selectively in respect of few consignments only, no question of law arise

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 267
  

  Addition made on account of ‘on money’ receipt - amount mentioned along with rates per sq.ft. of different floors on the loose papers is in respect of an estimate asking for the loan from the bank - No other evidence has been shown to justify that these amounts were received from purchasers – it is not justified to conclude that assessee received on-money - CIT (Appeals) & ITAT were right in holding that on the basis of these loose papers, no addition can be made

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 266
  

  Return filed on 30.3.1990 was found defective return as it was not accompanied by Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet – held that time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(2) not starts from the date on which defect is rectified, but starts from the date on which return is filed – held that notice under section 143(2) could not be issued after 30.9.1990 and, therefore, the notice dated 3.1.1992 is void ab initio and cannot give rise to a valid assessment u/s 143(3)

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 265
  

  Demanded on the ground that the RG-1 stocks were different from those mentioned in the balance sheet and equal penalty was imposed - appellant submitted that they had included certain goods, which were returned from the customer and which were kept at some other premises belonging to them - allegation of clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires corroboration and cannot be sustained merely based on variation between RG-1 and balance sheet stock – demand and penalty set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 264
  

  Commissioner has failed to assign any reason for less imposition of penalty - Therefore, it is felt expedient to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo proceedings to assign reasons for reduction in penalty, by taking into consideration the recent judgment of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench which shows there is no discretion under Section 11AC of the Central Excise. Act to award penalty lesser than evaded duty

  ---

1 ....171819202122232425........ 34