|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 863 Records
-
2008 (2) TMI 432
The High Court of Bombay set aside the order restoring the CHA License, citing violation of natural justice. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs for a reevaluation within three months, including cross-examination of a witness. Appeal allowed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 430
Whether the appeal filed by the Department can be dismissed by the Tribunal without going into the merits of the case?
Whether the Commissioner can review its earlier decision accepting the order-in-appeal for not filing appeal before learned CESTAT in terms of section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Held that:- Once the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise has accepted the order in appeal and decided not to file an appeal against the same, subsequently he cannot review its order by changing his mind without giving any valid reasons.
In the present case, the appellant has not placed on record any reason for which the Jurisdictional Commissioner wants to review its order and wants to file appeal. Merely because after the expiry of the period of limitation he has changed his mind, itself is no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Such ground, in our opinion, is not sufficient for condoning the delay. Thus, in these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the present case no substantial question of law is arising from the order of the CESTAT. Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 429
Whether the goods loaded in the vehicles were those very goods which were available in the vehicle at the time of entry of the vehicle at the Check Post?
Held that:- The High Court does not appear to have appreciated that in the goods Receipt no. 6401589 dated 9-6-2005 in the Column of "Private Mark", the Entry is 034 and in the Column of "Value", the entry is Rs. 76,20,000/-. The figures "034" and Rs. 76,20,000/- are the Delivery Note No. 34 and the value of the goods is Rs. 76,20,000/-, as mentioned in the Delivery Note.
Above being the factual position the High Court ought not to have interfered with the orders of the departmental authorities and the Tribunal, that too on the question of appreciation of the factual aspects. The High Court has not analyzed as to how the conclusions of the Tribunal as noted above suffer from any infirmity. If fact finding authority comes to certain conclusions honestly and bona fide the mere fact that Court may have a different perspective of that question, cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding even though another view may be possible. Considering the limited jurisdiction exercisable under Section 11 of the Act, such a course is not available. The High Court's order, which is clearly indefensible, is set aside. Appeal allowed of assessee.
-
2008 (2) TMI 428
Appointment procedures - Held that:- If the appellant was not authorized under the statute to take recourse to Rule 130 of the Rules for the purposes as mentioned in the written statement before the Labour Court, the said action itself must be held to be a nullity. In such a situation and particularly in view of the fact that in making recruitments of the respondents, the equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 were not complied with, the respondents cannot derive any benefit therefrom.
The award passed by the Labour Court is set aside. direct that the remaining six workmen should be conferred all benefits which have been conferred to those who have since superannuated.If no benefit had been conferred upon the retired employees, the Central Government shall, by way of compensation, pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the workman.The services of such respondents who are still working shall not be terminated except in accordance with law.The Commissionerate of Central Excise would issue necessary-directions to all Assistant Salt Commissioners in regard to their performance of statutory duties in terms of Rules 121, 129 and 130 of the Rules.The workmen must be paid the minimum wages fixed therefor. Appellant shall, subject to any statutory interdict may fix fair wages for the remaining six workmen.
-
2008 (2) TMI 427
Whether any sale took place within the State of Andhra Pradesh?
Held that:- Having decided that issue, Tribunal was not required to go into any other question particularly when the relevant factors were not before it. As rightly contended by the appellants there was no material whatsoever to show that the sales could be treated as intra-state sale within the State of Orissa. The assessing authorities proceeded to levy tax on erroneous premises. In the ultimate analysis the Tribunal held that the sales did not take place within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The conclusions to the effect that they are intra-state sales in Orissa are unsustainable. It was rightly decided that there was no intra-state sale within Andhra Pradesh. But for further conclusion that there was an intra-state sale within the State of Orissa, materials were required to be examined. That has not been done. There was no material before the Tribunal to come to a definite finding, as done, that the transaction should be treated as intra-state sale within the State of Orissa. The observations, therefore, have no relevance and need to be set aside, which we direct. Appeal allowed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 426
Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that dividend income earned by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 21,35,766 from a company called Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD, Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of Assessee in India under any of the provisions of the IT Act? -
Whether In view of s. 5(1)(c) of the IT Act, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that income earned out of dividend from the Company outside the country is not liable to be taxed under the Act?
Whether Tribunal was justified in law in recording a finding on an issue which was not raised by the assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(A) but was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and that too in an appeal filed by the Department?
Whether the Tribunal having dismissed the cross objection filed by the assessee was justified in then proceeding to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merits in their favour?
Held that:- The point involved in these appeals stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm & Ors. [1994 (3) TMI 71 - MADRAS High Court] which was duly affirmed by this Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Dead) Through LRs [2004 (5) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court] were in held that dividend income derived by the assessee from a company in Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Act. In favour of assessee.
-
2008 (2) TMI 425
Investment deposit account - Whether the interest earned by the appellant out of the deposits were excludible from the eligible profits for the purpose of deduction under section 32AB of the Act - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surplus out of the amount approved by the Government for meeting additional expenditure by the appellant would constitute the income in spite of the fact that the said amount was held in a fiduciary capacity by the appellant on behalf of the Government of Karnataka – held that - Assessing Officer has failed to record any specific and categorical findings with regard to the facts of this case, the nature of the business activities being carried out by the assessee and the reason for its earning interest on certain deposits. The same have not been gone into in detail to record a finding if it would form part of business income or it would be income from other sources – matter remanded.
-
2008 (2) TMI 424
Consequences of failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C – application of section 40(a)(ia) – held that - . Section 4 of the Act provides that for the income of the year concerned, income-tax shall be charged in accordance with the provisions enacted by the legislature. The income is defined under Section 2(24) of the Act. - A sum paid for advertisement towards advancement of the business is liable to be deducted from computation of the total income strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not otherwise - he was liable to deduct tax at source by virtue of Section 194C of the Act failing which Section 40 (a)(ia) provides that such payment shall not be allowed to be deducted from computation of total income and shall be treated to be the income of the assessee. Once a deduction of a particular amount is not allowable under the Act, it is liable to be taxed and merely because some other person may also be liable to tax after receiving the said amount in one or the other manner, it cannot be said that former assessee is entitled for exemption and cannot be taxed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 423
Commission paid to Government Doctors - contravention of the Public Policy – held that - that the sum of Rs. 1,08,678/- paid as commission to Government Doctors/vaids cannot be allowed as business expenditure under the Act and, therefore, the question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee - The explanation to section 37(1) disallowed an expenditure which is incurred by an assessee for a purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. The explanation thus makes it clear that such an expenditure shall not be treated to be a business or professional expenditure - The amount paid to the Government Doctors by the assessee clearly comes within the category of "illegal gratification" or "bribe". - payment as commission to Government Doctors for obtaining a favour therefrom by prescribing medicines in which the assessee was dealing cannot be said to be a "business expenditure" and no deduction can be allowed thereof under the Act
-
2008 (2) TMI 422
Interpretation of will – meaning of person u/s 2(31) – AOP - unexplained assets – held that - Thus it is apparent that an association of persons is a voluntary association of two or more persons who joined together for a particular purpose which may not necessarily be with the object of deriving of income profits or gains. It is also obvious that although the initial object may not have been deriving of income etc. but subsequently income must have arisen, because otherwise the association of persons will not be concerned with the Act. Whatever the object of associating, the association has to be voluntary on the part of the persons forming association. Forced association of persons because of inheriting joint property by a will or such other circumstances not being voluntary would not constitute such joint legatees as association of persons - that the assessee cannot be said to be an association of persons because of the terms of the will under which the two legatees have inherited the assets of the testator jointly, shares of each legatees not being specified
-
2008 (2) TMI 421
Amortization of Preliminary expenses – Business Expenses –Allowance – Remission or cessation of liability – deduction on actual payment basis – held that - the debenture issue expenditure in question is for the purposes of working capital in course of modernisation of the existing plant and machinery. Therefore, this is not a case which can fall within section 35D(1)(i) of the Act - the assessee will not be entitled to any deduction unless the assessee can establish that the advertisement or publicity was being done outside India for and on behalf of the assessee and in respect of goods the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business u/s 35B - Mere withdrawal of the court cases and submitting the disputes to arbitration would, in no case, amount to cessation of liability, which is the pre-requisite condition, for applying the provisions of section 41 of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that in the absence of cessation of liability section 41 of the Act cannot be made applicable
-
2008 (2) TMI 420
Exemption – voluntary retirement – conditions of the scheme - The assessee claimed deduction under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the benefit received on his voluntary retirement under the scheme called “Early Retirement Option Scheme” – during scrutiny assessment AO demanded the copy of scheme – assessee said the scheme was not available and could not produce the same – AO denied the exemption – before ITAT assessee submitted the scheme and ITAT allowed the exemption accordingly – held that - In order to entitle the person the benefit under section 10(10C) of the Act the provisions of section 10(10C) and rule 2BA (Circular No. 640) should be complied with cumulatively and compliance with some of them would not entitle the employee the benefit as claimed for – Exemption is not allowed – order of ITAT reversed
-
2008 (2) TMI 419
Intimation u/s 143(1)(a), (1A) - Deduction u/s 80HHC – whether additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Act can be levied on the assessee in rectification proceedings, which had not been made during the assessment year and that the prima facie adjustment and additional tax levied had been made in the original intimation itself? – held that - The deduction u/s 80HHC can be permitted only if there is positive profit in the exports of both self-manufactured goods as well as in trading goods. If there is loss in either of the two, then that loss could be taken into account for the purposes of computing the profit – yes, dditional tax under section 143(1A) of the Act can be levied on the assessee in rectification proceedings, which had not been made during the assessment year and that the prima facie adjustment and additional tax levied had been made in the original intimation itself
-
2008 (2) TMI 418
Provisional Assessment – powers and rights – The case of the petitioner in this writ petition, which is sought to be made out by Mr. Chowdhury is that the provisional assessment can be claimed as a matter of right - held that – no attempt has been made by the petitioner to satisfy the Customs Authorities as regards subsistence of a case for exercise of their power under Section 18 of the Act - Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner - . There is no complain of violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case. - conditions stipulated in Section 18(1) of the Act would have to be satisfied before the Customs authorities decide to make provisional assessment in terms of the aforesaid provision. A notification issued under the statute in any event cannot override the provisions of the Act - The writ petition dismissed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 417
Addition on account of Gifts received – ITAT deleted the the addition of ₹ 4,50,000, ₹ 2,50,000 and ₹ 2,00,000, which have been received on account of gift – Held that - there is no legal basis to assume, that to recognize the gift to be genuine, there should be any blood relationship, or any close relationship, between the donor and the donee. Instances are not rare, when even strangers make gifts, out of very many considerations, including arising out of love, affection and sentiments - when the assessee has produced the copies of the gift deeds and the affidavits of the donors, in the absence of anything to show, that the act of the assessee in claiming gift, was an act by way of money laundering, simply because he happens to receive gifts, it cannot be said that, that is required to be added in his income.
-
2008 (2) TMI 416
Reopening of assessment - no fresh facts or materials – the assessee and her other three sons are the co-owners of the property and as such are entitled to receive the income from the said property in their individual right and the dual ownership of the house property with regard to the land and superstructure has been legally recognised under section 22 of the Act - held that – in similar situation the case was remanded back in earlier proceeds – this case also remanded back.
-
2008 (2) TMI 415
Tax on Interest on securities as per the provisions of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 – held that - that there is a basic difference between loans and advances on the one hand and investment/securities on the other hand. This difference is indicated in the Income-tax Act, the Companies Act as well as the Banking Regulation Act - interest earned by the banks on dated Government securities is not liable to interest-tax under section 2(7) read with section 4 of the Interest Act, 1974 - question of law as formulated in the appeal has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2008 (2) TMI 414
Tax on interest u/s 12A of the Interest tax Act, 1974 - The Commissioner of Income-tax invoking section 19 of the Act cancelled the assessment made by the Assessing Officer and directed the Assessing Officer to levy interest-tax treating the assessee as financial institution - learned Tribunal dealt with the matter extensively and thereafter came to the conclusion that the assessee does not fall under the definition of section 2(58)(iv) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee is not liable for interest-tax as levied by the Department – Held that - We do not find any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the learned Tribunal nor the order so passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity nor we find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal – revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 413
Application for waiver of interest - Chief Commissioner has declined petitioner’s application for waiver of interest payable under sections 234B and 234C - the Chief Commissioner has pointed out that the petitioner has not satisfied any of the conditions for waiver referred to in the circular issued under section 119(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner noticed that the assessee made substantial investment in immovable property and in the construction of hospital building during the previous years which go to show that the assessee had liquidity to pay advance tax – held that - original petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit
-
2008 (2) TMI 412
Valuation – Stamp Duty Valuation – whether the consideration shown in the document of conveyance, is the actual amount paid by way of consideration to be taken to be undisclosed income of the assessee, or it is a deflated figure and, therefore, addition is required to be made - Held that - Admittedly, in the present case, apart from relying upon the Stamp Valuation Authority’s rates there is no other material and in our view, the Stamp Valuation Authority’s rates cannot be taken, by itself, as the price, for which the property was purchased by the seller for the purpose of making assessment under section 158BC read with section 158BB of the Act - The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the question as framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
............
|
9911796707
