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 421 to 440 of 658 Records

• 2007 (11) TMI 243
  

  Amount paid on account of rent of guest house maintained by the assessee - there is specific provision for disallowance u/s 37(4) – hence Tribunal was not right in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 67,237 paid on account of rent - Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer not to reduce the amount of subsidy to arrive at the actual cost of assets u/s 43(1) for allowing depreciation – appeal partly allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 241
  

  Refund - no dispute that appellant is entitled to refund - only dispute is that the adjudicating authority is within the jurisdiction of Jaipur-I Commissionerate - appellant deposited the tax within the jurisdiction of Jaipur-II – refund can’t be rejected on ground that tax was paid in different jurisdiction - matter is remanded back to adjudicating authority to decide afresh after taking into consideration the relevant letter of the Chief Accounts Officer - appeal is allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 240
  

  Composite contract for installation and commissioning of ATMs in banks – assessee contend that contract was composite and the same was not to be brought within the ambit of Commissioning or Installation Services - plea of time bar - this Bench has decided the case in assesse’s favour in case of Daelim Industrial Co. Pvt., which has been confirmed by SC – in view of some other decisions, we allow the stay application granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying its recovery

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 239
  

  Demand for Storage & Warehousing Services is for the period prior to 16-8-02 – this service was not under tax net during that period – another demand on Cargo Handling Services, Business Auxiliary Services & CHA services - Prima facie, assessee have a strong case in first issue - in other two issues, the matter is required to be seen at the final stage - majority of the amounts are not payable and the case appears to be in assessees’ favour, we are inclined to allow the stay application

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 238
  

  CHA was denied the benefit of reimbursable charges & abatement as per Boards Circular on the ground that he has not produced evidence with regard to reimbursement of amount to customers – in view of impugned circular, other circumstantial evidence (invoices & letters) can also be considered in absence of evidence from customers - assessee has already paid ST of 85% on the value arrived at by them - matter has been referred to Larger Bench on issue of ‘Input Service’ credit – so stay is granted

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 237
  

  Refund rejected on ground of limitation - petitioner paid the duty for the disputed period only under protest, as such the period of limitation prescribed would not apply as per the second proviso to Section 11B - petitioner has informed Asst. Comm. the details of cost of production of LAB, & informed that the incidence of duty has not been passed - hence contention of revenue that aspect of unjust enrichment has not been considered by single judge is not acceptable – refund allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 236
  

  Authorized Service Station - appellants render three free services for every vehicle sold - since no amounts are collected from any person towards the services rendered by them as an authorized service station, the tax demanded from them is not sustainable - no tax can be levied on them on account of free services - appellants have already paid tax & cess demanded - balance dues are towards penalty & interest yet to be quantified - waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the dues granted

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 235
  

  Original order modified by lower appellate authority on ground that it was beyond the scope of SCN, is not justified - SCN was issued to deny refund of the duty paid on consulting engineers service - Since this was not a case of a demand notice from the Dept., the observation of the Lower Appellate Authority is not correct – Comm.(A) must have examined as whether appellants are liable to Service tax during impugned periods or not – Department’s appeal is allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 234
  

  As per Import Policy, Crude Palm Stearin can be imported without obtaining licence with certain conditions – revenue alleged that RBD Palm Steam has been misdeclared as Crude Palm Stearin on ground that moisture content is less than 0.1% - opportunity not given to assessee to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner - even the request for retest of samples has not been complied with – product satisfies the moisture and impurity content as per PORAM standards of Crude Palm Steam – no misdeclaration

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 233
  

  Valuation - misdeclaration in configuration of goods – differential duty can be demanded only in respect of one consignment covered by the packing slip recovered by Customs - no justification to adopt the enhanced value relating to the configuration in the recovered packing slip in respect of all consignments - no justification for rejecting the Transaction Value in absence of proper investigation by dept - matter remanded for re-computing differential duty in respect of that one consignment

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 232
  

  On basis of various tests of classification, transmission line can’t be considered as electrical “apparatus” - appellants plea for classification of conductors as parts of electrical apparatus doesn’t succeed - transmission line & electrical machinery/apparatus are different as transmission lines carry electricity from one point to another, whereas electrical machinery/apparatus use electrical energy for performing specific functions –hence for electric goods CH 85.44 is appropriate than 85.48

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 231
  

  Demand confirmed on account of clandestine removal as assessee show less production of the finished products indicating excess consumption of furnace oil per MT of the finished products - no finding with regard to the consumption of electricity – allegation of clandestine removal on above basis(theoretical formula) is set aside in absence of any corroborative evidence - order travels far beyond the scope of SCN – duty confirmed only on quantity of billets found short – penalty reduced

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 230
  

  As per rule 12B & cir. 759/75/03, any person can purchase raw materials & get textile goods manufactured from a job worker & in such case job worker is considered as a manufacturer - liability to pay duty arises at time of clearance from job worker’s premises - value was rightly adopted on basis of the raw materials cost + job charges - prior to 31-3-03 no duty was payable on the grey fabrics hence goods manufactured prior to that date but cleared later are not liable to duty – appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 229
  

  Criminal proceedings for failure of filing return - When the petitioner seeks to get herself discharged contending that the charges levelled against the petitioner are groundless, it is incumbent on the part of the Trial court to have considered the same on the merits and disposed of the petition at the earliest - the reasons stated for dismissing the petition are not in consonance with law and the same are unsustainable &, therefore, the said order has to be set aside and accordingly set aside

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 228
  

  Issue pertains to demand of interest on the duty subsequently paid on revision of prices - goods were cleared by supplementary invoices to the customers on onward revision of prices - only duty is required to be paid, not interest – held that interest is not leviable when the differential duty is paid due to price variation- impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 227
  

  Credit on Welding Electrode deniable as settled by the Larger Bench of Tribunal & therefore, the imposition of penalty is not justified - Credit on Winding Wires denied because appellant initially claimed it as inputs and subsequently, it was changed as capital goods - held that declaration filed by assessee in terms of Rule 57Q is sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on inputs u/r 57A – as per decision of Larger Bench in case of Modi Rubber Ltd., the credit on Winding Wire is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 226
  

  Demand raised on appellant (transferor of advance license) on the ground that the condition of Not. 203/92 as regards non-availment of Credit in respect of input used in their exported product, don’t stands fulfilled – held that even if the Credit was available, the same was reversed by the said manufacturer, hence benefit of notification not deniable to appeallant – in case of transfer of license person who is transferee is only liable to pay duty because he has actually imported the goods

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 225
  

  Appellant filed B/E for import of 14.4MT of Tetrahydrofuran under DEPB Scheme – by mistake duty was calculated & paid through DEPB pass book on 28.8 MT instead of 14.4 MT - arithmetical error on the face of the records, could have been rectified by the lower authorities by themselves or on being pointed out by assessee, u/s 154 Custom Act - excess amount of the duty debited by the appellant in the DEPB passbook is directed to be re-credited to their DEPB pass book

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 224
  

  Assessee procured various parts for erection of power plant (non-conventional energy system) from different manufacturers – revenue noticed that the parts procured by assessee are not entitled for exemption – it shows that manufacturers who supplied these parts are liable for payment of duty - liability is clearly on the manufacturer & not on the person who receives the goods – revenue has recover duty from seller(manufacturer) hence revenue can’t proceed against assessee to collect duty twice

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 223
  

  Credit denied & penalties imposed on ground that invoice on the strength of which the credit was availed, was computer generated, & name of appellant was hand written - Circular 441/7/99-CX clarified that credit shall not be denied on procedural lapse if duty paid goods were used in the factory - assessee’s invoice contains the details viz description of the goods, AV, name & address of factory or warehouse where the goods are to be received - in view of this, denial of credit not sustainable

  ---

1 ....181920212223242526........ 33