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 421 to 440 of 678 Records

• 2007 (7) TMI 263
  

  Appellants had imported second-hand machinery under EPCG licence issued by the Director-General of Foreign Trade – confiscation of machinery – appellant submitted that they had financial difficulties & their application for rehabilitation was pending before BIFR - appellants claim to have discharged export obligation under the EPCG licence and to have already obtained the requisite certificate from the DGFT, it is for the Commissioner to consider this claim and take appropriate decision

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 262
  

  Search at premises where the Assessee is also residing along with his father - AO issued notice u/s 158BC to the Assessee for filing of the Block return – the father of the Assessee had owned up the documents seized during the course of search and had also filed an affidavit to this effect. Thus, under these circumstances no addition can be made in the hands of the Assessee on account of the seized documents - no legal infirmity in Tribunal’s order of deleting additions

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 261
  

  Assessee had incurred certain expenses for his medical treatment and the expenses were reimbursed to him in cash by his employer. According to the Revenue, this represented a benefit derived by the assessee and was his income within the meaning of Sec. 2(24)(iv) - Tribunal was not justified in holding that reimbursement of medical expenses in the form of payment represented a 'benefit' liable to tax” – held that cash payments towards medical reimbursement not comes in scope of Section 2(24)(iv)

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 260
  

  Assessee not appeared even after several opportunities – Commissioner held that assessee is not interested in prosecuting appeal on the ground that assessee not appeared in any of seventeen hearings nor gave any justifiable reason for adjournment of the case - Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would not amount to committing any illegality – assessee’s appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 259
  

  Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 147 provides that an Assessing Officer can resort to reassessment proceedings in a case where income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act. The assessee at the regular assessment had been allowed a deduction more than actually allowable u/s 80HHC - Accordingly, reassessment under section 147(b) cannot be held to be invalid

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 258
  

  Share/stock broker - maintaining separate books of account for the trading in shares as well as investments in shares - assessee is carrying on the business only in the name and style of "Brilliant and Company" - payments in shares have been done by the assessee in his personal account -it was found that assessee has been holding shares for a long time and has been utilising the surplus funds only for the investments – held that profit earned on sale of surplus shares will attract capital gains

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 257
  

  AO proposed to reopen the assessment for change of opinion with reference to valuation method adapted – valuation of the property admitted by the assessee in the income tax return and the wealth tax return were accepted by the Assessing Officer - Held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion – revenue appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 256
  

  Reassessment - Revenue failed to prove that there was a failure on part of assessee to disclose any material facts necessary for assessment – assessee filed a copy of annual report along with return of income with AO in the original assessment proceedings – when assessment was made u/s 143(3), no action could be taken u/s 147, after expiry of 4 years – hence notice was barred by limitation

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 255
  

  In pursuance of Amnesty scheme, assessee revised his return – AO made additions on account of unexplained expenditure in marriage and charged interest – department was not justified in charging interest u/s 139(8) and 215 in relation to the unexplained expenditure incurred on the marriage - Tribunal was right in law in holding that case of the assessee was covered under the Amnesty Scheme – in view of circular no. 451, taking liberal view interest charged under section 139(8)/215 are deleted

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 254
  

  Assessee filed its return under the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act - Section 9 would be attracted only if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the assessee has failed to furnish the return without any reasonable cause as required by Section 5 - assessee, in the present case, having furnished the return within the time prescribed in section 5(3) cannot, therefore, be considered as having failed to furnish the return as required under section 5 – penalty not leviable

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 253
  

  Mfg. brass ingots, wire, rods etc. out of imported Dross - Allegation that the appellant (EOU) has cleared segregation generated items Brass Granules to DTA on payment of Excise duty instead of Central excise duty equaling aggregate of duties of Customs – appellant submission that they have not sold the segregated material into DTA but manufactured items by paying 50% of the customs duty as excise duty after permission of sale by Development Commissioner, is correct – demand set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 252
  

  Business of investment in shares and securities – purchase of shares - Assessee had no intention to trade in shares – so shares purchased could not be said business asset in hands of assessee and it had been rightly offered under head “Capital gains” – it was only an investment activity, that the interest paid for acquisition of shares would partake of the character of cost of the shares and therefore it was rightly capitalized along with the cost of acquisition of shares

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 251
  

  Tribunal held that transaction of purchase of packing materials was not proved to be sham nor was it shown that the price paid was different from that shown in the books of account of the appellant – therefore there as no doubt as to the reality of the purchase of packing material as the payments were made to the parties only by way of cheques – hence on the factual findings there was no reason to deny the deduction u/s 37

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 250
  

  Appellant is required to deposit Rs. 1,38,781/- being the refund erroneously sanctioned - appellant stated that he paid service tax on the interest collected under a mistaken notion of law - Hence, the refund claim was filed – part of refund claim was held time-barred – in view of various decisions held that when the department collects any levy which is not authorized by law, then the same should be refunded and it will not be hit by the provisions of Section 11B – stay granted

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 249
  

  Assessee, director of company - in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. G. Narasimhan, held that loan by company from accumulated balances to a director, is assessable as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - non-disclosure of the amount of loan/advances by the respondent - material facts necessary for assessment not disclosed fully and truly - action of the Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) is justified

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 248
  

  Computing the undisclosed income for the block period - whether deductions under chapter VI-A to be allowed, while computing the undisclosed income for the block period under chapter XIV-B - whether the amounts relating to the advance tax paid should be executed even though return has not been filed – both question stands covered in favour of assessee by the judgments of this high court in case of Anbu Textiles, Eastern Produce Co., A. R. Enterprises, and N. Vellaiyan

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 247
  

  Production of pre-shipment certificate in terms of public notice 16/2004-09 - Revenue submits that certificate same has been issued by Denmark office instead of Benin office of inspection agency. It is the respondent’s contention that the Benin was a branch office, who has inspected the goods and certificate was issued by Denmark, who is the head office – held that certificate issued by Head office or branch office, will not make any difference – benefit cannot be denied

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 246
  

  Penalty imposed u/s 76 in review order passed by commissioner – in remand from tribunal, original authority has already reduced duty liability and has already imposed penalty u/s 75A and 77 accordingly – held that once the adjudicating authority has decided on the penalty, it is not open to the Review authority to enhance the same - prima facie, there is no justification for imposition of penalty under Section 76 - full waiver of deposit of penalty is granted

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 245
  

  In view of SC decision in another case, AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 and held that assessee is not entitled to deductions u/s 80HH, 80HHA & 80I - Tribunal was right in law in holding that, AO has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and seek to adjudicate the issue which had already been adjudicated by the appellate authority – Tribunal had rightly annulled the reassessment - reopening of the assessment was bad in law

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 244
  

  Whether letter issued by the department is a appealable order - Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim and also the rectification application filed by the assessee & held that a letter is not an appealable order – impugned order of commissioner is not maintainable – in view of decision of tribunal in case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. it is held that a letter issued by the department is a decision and is appealable order - matter is remanded back - appeal is allowed in remand

  ---

1 ....181920212223242526........ 34