Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (9) 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 (9) TMI 242
  

  Excess drawback availed by exporter by over-invoicing of goods – goods described as ladies trousers but which were actually found to be used and second-hand worn out garments - allegation on appellants of aiding and abetting the exporting firm – revenue failed to establish that knowledge of over-invoicing was available with the appellants – penalty on appellants u/s 114(iii) on charge of abetting firm in procuring fraudulent higher drawback, is not justified

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 241
  

  Allegation of undervaluation of property – allegation that apparent consideration is lower than the fair market value by 15 % - admittedly, the fair market value of the flat had not been determined by revenue – hence it could no be said that there was undervaluation – moreover revenue has not filed relevant particulars of sale instances of comparable sales – breach of principle of natural justice – order passed u/s 269UD (1) for purchase of immovable property by central govt. is set aside

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 240
  

  Use of common inputs plastic crates and Furnace Oil in the manufacture of dutiable aerated waters and exempted fruit pulp based drink ‘Slice’ - it was not possible for the appellant to ascertain the quantum of input relatable to clearance of exempted Slice – appellant reversed the entire credit availed – held that reversal of ascertained credit on inputs used in exempted products before their clearance amounted to non-availment of credit – demand under Rule 6(3) not sustainable

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 239
  

  Notice u/s 143(2) sent through registered post – in compliance with second notice assessee attended assessment proceedings - assessee filed an affidavit denying service of earlier notice only before the Tribunal for the first time - assessee has not been able to rebut the presumption that notice has been served – assessment framed u/s 143(3) on basis of earlier notice cannot be held without jurisdiction as notice u/s 143(2) was served on the assessee within the prescribed time

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 238
  

  Service tax collected – assessee neither claimed any deduction nor debited the amount in the P/L A/c– AO & CIT disallowed the amount and added it back to the income of assessee – held that since the assessee did not debit the amount to the Profit and Loss A/c as an expenditure nor did the assessee claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 237
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the ROM application and set aside the duty demand in Appeal No. E/1907/05 as barred by limitation. The error apparent arose from the Final Order dated 5-12-2006, which sustained the duty demand challenged in the appeal. The demand was considered beyond the statutory period of limitation.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 236
  

  Penalty on account of concealment in value of property – higher value shown in return - since assessee has shown value of property in returns on basis of report of approved valuer of income-tax department, and then assessee cannot be held guilty of concealing any particular in relation to value of the property – penalty set aside

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 235
  

  Credit taken by the appellant on the goods returned by purchaser - appellant not produced any evidence to prove that the very same finished goods were received back - no plausible explanation as to why there was so much delay of 40 to 140 days in receiving back the finished goods from the date of clearance – credit deniable – in respect of goods found unaccounted, explanation of appellant that such goods were in process of final packing is not disputed by dept. so confiscation is not justified

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 234
  

  Order of purchase of immovable property by Central Govt. - Appropriate Authority has not determined the fair market value of the said flat so as to satisfy the test of difference of 15% criteria - there is no finding recorded in the impugned order to the effect that there is under valuation to the extent of 15% or more of the fair market value - comparable sale instance not furnished – impugned order of purchase is not valid is liable to be quashed

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 233
  

  Demand is confirmed by treating the applicant as tour operator - contention is that the applicants were only transporting employees of Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd. Therefore, they are not providing any service as tour operator - applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1 lakh at the time of hearing of the appeal - prima facie, we find that amount already deposited is sufficient for the purpose of hearing the appeal - Service tax and penalties are waived

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 232
  

  Price variation clause – payment of duty through accumulated credit - no case has been made out to show that the credit taken was wrong; that debiting the cenvat account at the time of clearance of goods is anything other than payment of excise duty; that the amount so debited from the cenvat account goes back to the Central Government account and that there is any violation of provisions of 11D (1) – since section 11D is not applicable so recovery u/s 11D (1) is not justified

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 231
  

  Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise – territorial jurisdiction - chief criterion to determine jurisdiction is the place where the offence is committed - offence was committed by M/s. Monga Brothers Limited, who had availed irregular credit on the basis of the fake invoices by the respondent at Mandi Govindgarh – Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana rightly imposed penalty on the respondent in connection with the irregular availment of the credit by “Monga Brothers”

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 230
  

  Assessee, non-resident rendered services to ONGC –assessee contention that amount received by them on account of reimbursement of freight and transportation charges were actually incurred in respect of equipment was not includible while computing its income u/s 44BB, is not acceptable –Assessing Officer was justified in adding the said amount which was received by the non-resident company as per provisions of Section 44BB and imposing the income tax thereon

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 229
  

  Charitable-cum-religious trust – AO disallowed exemption u/s 11 on ground that there was violation of provisions of sec. 13(1)(bb), as trust was carrying on business which was not for the primary purposes of trust - Tribunal held that even if there is some miscarriage on account of breach of trust by the trustees, the benefit of sec. 11 cannot be denied if such miscarriage doesn’t affect the validity of trust – moreover assessee has been getting benefit since 1969 – tribunal order is justified

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 228
  

  Goods confiscated on ground that vehicle was carrying goods without invoices – evidence shown by assessee that invoices were made but driver of vehicle did not collect those invoices – quadruplicate copies of invoice also produced by assessee – no clandestine removal - confiscation not justified – penalty and interest not justified – revenue’s appeal rejected

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 227
  

  Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to hold that the abandonment of ₹ 1,99,211 which is the share of the investment allowance reserve by the assessee in favour of the firm, i.e., M/s. Kapoor Brothers is not a deemed gift under section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act?

  Held that:- Following the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in T.M. Louiz [2000 (9) TMI 68 - SUPREME Court] have no option but to hold that merely because the assessee abandoned or did not claim any share in the investment allowance reserve, the same shall not be treated as a deemed gift within the meaning of section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act.

  In the result, the question is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 226
  

  Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden cast on the assessee by Explanation (1B) to section 271(1)(c) stands discharged by the assessee providing basic information without substantiating the same?

  Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the onus of proving the source for the share application money is not entirely on the assessee but largely on the Assessing Officer?

  Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has to prove that the cash credit is unexplained or that the explanation given is not true, to make an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act?

  Held that:- The ultimate fact finding authority- the Tribunal in its order, which is impugned in these appeals, has recorded a clear finding to the effect that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer had listed the shareholders and found some of them were retired employees of the bank, some of them were working employees of the bank and rest of them were agriculturists. The Assessing Officer did not dispute that those persons did not exist. Though the Assessing Officer directed the assessee-company to produce the persons, he did not take the minimum pain of issuing notice to anyone of the persons when the details about them were very much available with him. Thus the Assessing Officer failed in his duty and obligation to disprove the claim of the assessee to the effect that the depositors were not genuine persons. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the action of the Assessing Officer in arriving at a conclusion that the persons with low salary income would not have mobilised the fund was based on wild guess and doubting the capacity of the persons on surmises. It further held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the shareholders were not possessing money to pay the share application money. According to the Tribunal, the assessee discharged the onus cast upon it by providing the basic materials and it was the Assessing Officer who failed to prove the contrary. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 225
  

  Deduction u/s 80HHC disallowed by AO on ground that book profit income computed u/s 115JA was negative – held that AO is not entitled to alter the profit & loss account prepared by assessee while arriving at the book profit – in view of non-obstante clause in sec. 115JA, it is clear that provision is a self-contained & no other provision would have effect on it – computation u/s80HHC should be limited to the case of profits of eligible category only – revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 224
  

  Stay application - prayer of the 100% EOU (E-3 Plant) for de-bonding with effect from the date of application i.e., 6-10-2001 is pending before the Supreme Court - impugned case is linked and inter connected to the case, which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the stay has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case, and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stay is granted in instant case

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 223
  

  Priority industry - Assessee is an industrial undertaking engaged in conversion of coal tar into hard pitch anthrance oil etc. being the priority industry - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income on FDR with bank and on deposit with IDBI is part of the profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking attracts section 80-I – this interest has close nexus with the business of the assessee-company hence deduction allowable u/s 80 I

  ---

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