|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 658 Records
-
2007 (9) TMI 222
In the instant case the Commissioner authorised the Deputy Commissioner to seek review - held that the power could have been conferred only on the Adjudicating Officer. In the instant case the authority on whom the power was conferred is not the Adjudicating Authority and consequently we find no error or illegality committed by the Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal - question of law as raised does not arise - Appeal dismissed
-
2007 (9) TMI 221
CIT (A) & Tribunal have rightly concluded that unabsorbed depreciation & investment allowance stand on a different footing vis-a-vis unabsorbed business losses for the purpose of section 80 which specifically refers the carry forward & set off of business losses under sections 72, 73 and 74 – Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation & investment allowance of earlier years in spite of the fact that the return was filed late
-
2007 (9) TMI 220
Appellants are manufacturers of Polyester Yarn - Goods Transport Agency’s Service availed - credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as also credit of service tax paid on input services was utilized - department objected to such utilization of credit – as per explanation to the definition of ‘Output Service’ u/r 2(p) CCR, GTA Service on which the assessee paid the service tax should be deemed to be their ‘Output Service’ – credit utilization was justified – assessee’s appeal allowed
-
2007 (9) TMI 219
Assessee contended that the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act was not proper and valid because he had not recorded reasons and his satisfaction for issuing such notice - while issuing notice u/s 148(1) of the Act, AO must assign reasons – held that the mandate of sections 147 and 148 of the Act have not been complied with and, therefore, the entire proceeding & consequential orders become void ab initio - action of AO is declared as illegal, arbitrary & unjustified
-
2007 (9) TMI 218
Licenced auctioneer - According to the revenue, the activities undertaken by the respondents of receiving and storing cardamom, drawing samples and selling cardamom at the auction for a commission of 1 per cent was an activity falling under the taxable service of C/F agents – held that mere receiving & storing goods for auction has nothing to do with clearing/forwarding operations contemplated under the taxable service of clearing and forwarding agent – revenue appeal dismissed
-
2007 (9) TMI 217
Whether ‘Consignment Agent’ can be brought within the category of ‘C&F Agent’ – in view of decision in case of Transasia Sales Syndicate, it is held that a Commission Agent engaged to procure orders and not entrusted with the work of clearing and forwarding of the goods would not be covered under C & F Agents - appeal are allowed
-
2007 (9) TMI 216
Held that a person receiving taxable service from GTO was not covered by the provisions of Sections 70 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and that any demand notice issued to such a person by the Department under Section 73 was not maintainable - above legal position did not get altered even after amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Finance Act, 2003 – in view of other decisions of SC & tribunal, commissioner (A) was justified in allowing assessee’s appeal
-
2007 (9) TMI 215
Depreciation – actual cost of asset – in view of decision of apex court in CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd., reference made to this court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue – held that Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of assets shall not be reduced by the amount of subsidy received by the assessee from the Government for the purpose of working out depreciation u/s 32 read with section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
-
2007 (9) TMI 214
In course of assessment proceedings, assessee purchased bank drafts on different dates – assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the fact that the drafts were purchased on behalf of his brother, not for him – source of investment not explained - AO is justified in making additions by treating the amount as unexplained investment of assessee – Order of tribunal & comm.(A) in allowing revenue appeal are justified – no question of law arise
-
2007 (9) TMI 213
Penalty proceedings arose out of assessment order – assessment order given on March 30,1999 – consequently, October 29, 1999 would be the last date of period of limitation to pass penalty order – order imposing penalty passed on March 13, 2000 is time barred – since impugned appeal involve a question of law regarding interpretation of sec. 275(1)(c), about the computation of limitation period, it is maintainable in view of exceptions given in circular 2/05
-
2007 (9) TMI 212
Assessee, Non-resident Co. engaged in business of oil & gas exploration – reassessment notice u/s 148 to enhance rate of tax from 55% to 65% – Comm (A) hold that the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section 147 were not fulfilled by AO for initiating the proceedings u/s 147/148 - tribunal also affirmed order of Comm(A) – as there is no failure on part of assessee in disclosing material facts for assessment, reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation of 4 years
-
2007 (9) TMI 211
Synchronous motors of 3 wattage - contemporaneous import – Dept sought to compare imported goods of 3 W, with goods having different wattage i.e. 4W, & also having different diameter, width, weight - on technical specifications Comm(A) found that goods weren’t identical because 3 W motor would have lesser wires & lesser value as compared to 4 W motor – order of comm.. is justified, there is no undervaluation – no new ground can be raised for first time before tribunal – revenue appeal dismissed
-
2007 (9) TMI 210
Imposition of penalty for clandestine removal by ad. authority u/s 11AC – Clandestine removal admitted by assessee but Comm(A) reduced penalty by observing that there was simply presumption of clandestine removal - When ad. authority had imposed penalty, the Comm (A) could not have reduced it by interfering with the discretion of the ad. authority if there is no indication that the order of penalty was legally defective or not based on evidence - penalty imposed by OIO is restored
-
2007 (9) TMI 209
Replacement of goods after clearance on payment of duty - contention of the appellants that in terms of the contracts, they are bound to supply these replacements without charges as the original invoices has already included the value of these replacements, is rejected - no provision under law for payment of duty on goods which are to be supplied later - appellant have taken credit on inputs supplied to job worker but cleared the final good from job workers’ premises without – demand confirmed
-
2007 (9) TMI 208
Tribunal noted that for import of similar goods around the similar time in other order of the Commissioner (A), the fine and penalty has been reduced - tribunal relied on the judgment, for reducing the penalty and fine - in our opinion, it cannot be said that no reasons were given by tribunal - consequently the questions of law as raised would not arise. Hence, appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 207
Investment allowance u/s 32A – machinery given on hire by owner – construction equipment vehicles like dumpers, tippers, and hydraulic excavator are not road transport vehicles so profit gained by letting them out on hire could not debar the owner of machinery from claiming allowance – there is no condition that machinery should be used by owner himself to claim investment allowance
-
2007 (9) TMI 206
Tribunal had allowed assessee’s appeal and quashed penalty imposed for (concealment of income) but proceedings were pending – While the appeal was pending before tribunal, the dept. initiated criminal proceedings against petitioners – held that once the order had been cancelled by tribunal, the finding of appellate tribunal was conclusive and the prosecution could not be sustained and was to be quashed
-
2007 (9) TMI 205
Clandestine removal by the EOU – permission not taken for DTA clearance - benefit of exemption not. 8/97 would be applicable even to goods cleared to DTA without permission – excise duty collected from customer was not deposited to the exchequer as required in terms of Sec. 11D - serious offence - applicant cannot be given complete immunity from payment of interest and imposition of penalty - since the amount of duty liability had been discharged in full, immunity from prosecution is granted
-
2007 (9) TMI 204
Polyster Fabrics imported in this case are nothing but fabrics(notified goods u/not. 204 issued u/s 123(2) - On basis of chemical reports Revenue holds that the goods don’t tally with the particulars contained in the B/E on which the said goods had been admittedly got cleared – if goods have been seized under the provisions of the Act on the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, settlement application is not maintainable by virtue of third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 127B
-
2007 (9) TMI 203
Documentary evidence shows that the appellants have cleared finished excisable goods without payment of duty - details of Out- going Gate Passes (OGPs) and duty paid invoices do not tally and their dates are different - procedural requirements contemplated by Rule 173H not fulfilled – Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea of assessee that verification can now be carried out because the assessee had failed to file the necessary declaration at relevant time - no merit in appeals
............
|
9911796707
