|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 925 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 799
Rejection of book of accounts - Best judgment assessment - Assessing Officer has given detailed reasons in the assessment order as to why he was not satisfied about the correctness and completeness of the accounts of the appellant - No details of production yield and wastage were produced though the papers impounded during the course of survey indicated that the appellant was maintaining these details - Decided against the assessee Regarding non-service of notice under section 143(3) - This issue has been raised by the appellant for the first time before this Court - now it is not open to the appellant to allege at this stage that the assessment proceedings had been initiated without issuing proper-notice under section 143(2) of the Act - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (9) TMI 798
Deduction u/s 35AB - expenditure on technical knowhow - AO disallowed the claim of the assessee mainly on the ground that the assessee itself was not involved in the manufacturing activities - In the present case, it is not in dispute that the technical knowhow acquired by the assessee has been used by the assessee in the manufacture of goods which the assessee got manufactured from a third party under its direct control and supervision with a particular specification as required by the assessee - deduction under Section 35AB of the Act would be allowable, where the assessee uses the technical knowhow to get the goods manufactured through a third party under its direct supervision and control Regarding expenditure incurred on acquisition of trade-mark under Section 35A - Tribunal has also considered the alternate argument of the assessee and held that even if the relief under Section 35A of the Act is not allowable to the assessee, then the relief would be allowable under Section 37 of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT reported in 177 ITR 377 - Since the decision of the ITAT on the alternative claim of the assessee has not been challenged in the appeal - appeal is disposed off
-
2011 (9) TMI 797
Deduction u/s 80-IA - Deduction u/s 35D - By its order dated 9.7.2008 following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of' CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip [2007 -TMI - 2891 - HIGH COURT, DELHI] held the aforesaid substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue Regarding deduction u/s 35D - Apex Court in the case of Punjab Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1996 -TMI - 5589 - SUPREME Court] where it was held that the payment made to the Registrar of Companies is to be treated as a capital expenditure - The deduction was claimed on the ground that Section 35D provides for amortization of preliminary expenses in respect of fees paid to the Registrar of Companies and expenditure incurred towards public subscription of shares. Once the condition of Section 35D is fulfilled, the assessee is entitled to the deduction - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 796
Application for granting approval u/s 80G - Director of Income-tax(Exemptions) has made an observation that the activities of the assessee society are that of sale of tickets and renting of hall - Held that: Tickets are sold because some of the cost has to be borne by the public, as organising of such programmes involves heavy amount of cost - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 795
Addition - unexplained investment - Tribunal's decision was actuated by the fact that raw materials purchased were converted into finished goods and the same had already been included in the stock which has resulted into higher profit and once when the closing stock of raw material had been included in the purchase and finished goods, the same was not required to be included in the profit and loss account - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (9) TMI 794
Whether the amount received by the assessee by way of cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- is neither a loan nor deposit and therefore section 269SS is not attracted - learned counsel appearing for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contended that in the arguments before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) it is admitted that it is only a technical error or a mere breach and therefore there is a clear admission - Held that: the purpose for which the said amount was received is also clear from the material on record and therefore there is nothing to indicate that this amount is paid as loan or deposit - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 793
Demand - Time limitation - The internal audit group of the Revenue Department detected that the appellants are receiving payments for making available space on their website for advertisement service - The argument by the Ld. Counsel that making available such space on the website means export of service is prima facie not convincing when customers located in India can click on the website and avail the service - In the case of providing a link to google.inc. also, the adjudicating Commissioner has come to the conclusion that making available such space attracts levy under Section 65(105)(zzzm) - Held that: the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the predeposit. No arguments have also been advanced on behalf of the appellants on the ground of financial hardship - Decided against the assessee by way of direction to deposit Rs. 35 Lakhs
-
2011 (9) TMI 792
Demand - Wheteher Cenvat credit under a rent-a-cab service and outdoor catering service, to respectively transport its employees to the factory and back and to provide food for them fall under the input services entitled to credit - The catering service, rent-a-cab and transportation services and the tax paid on the said services are stated as input services - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 791
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of Service Tax of Rs. 10,39,720/- and penalties - It is submitted that, from the stage at which the blank is obtained through grinding of the worn-out die on the aforesaid machine, the process is analogous to conversion of incomplete or unfinished into complete/finished article and hence it should amount to ‘manufacture’ - It is contended that, where the activity undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture, it would not be exigible to Service Tax under any head whatsoever - the appellant is directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000
-
2011 (9) TMI 790
Whether the respondents are entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid on the outward transportation of their final product from their factory to the destination of the consignee - the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [2009 -TMI - 32932 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that the assessee is entitled to the Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on the GTA services utilised for outward transportation of the goods - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 789
Demand of alleged short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 51,766/- along with interest and also for imposition of penalty under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Notification No. 32/04-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 - The benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. is available subject to the condition that no cenvat credit in respect of the inputs or capital goods used by the Goods Transport Agency has been availed by them - Held that: appellant would not be entitled for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. and hence, the duty demand has been correctly confirmed against them along with interest and as such, there is no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)’s findings upholding the duty demand along with interest - Appeal is disposed of
-
2011 (9) TMI 788
Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax on due dates - The material on record discloses that the assessee on being pointed out by the authorities for not paying the service tax, has paid the service tax with interest even before the issue of show cause notice - It is unfortunate that inspite of statutory provisions, the authorities have issued a show cause notice claiming penalty. So tax and interest was paid before issue of show cause notice - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (9) TMI 787
Applications for waiver of pre-deposit - According to the applicants, they are involved in development of software, testing of the same and undertaking modification and upgradation in the course of use of the software developed by them as advised by their clients and therefore, their activities should be treated as falling under the “Information Technology Software Services” under Section 65(105)(zzzze) - Held that: the agreements are not for mere supply of manpower but for undertaking entire activities relating to development of software to the satisfaction of their clients including modification and upgradation of the said software based on difficulties being pointed out by the clients while using the software developed by the applicants - The personnel including the project Managers are on the payrolls of the applicant companies only - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 786
Assessable value - Because of the mis-declaration the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000 - The main grounds for Appeal is that the value of tin plates of secondary quality was only $465 PMT at that time - the entire sequence of events shows that the goods were described in the invoices as prime grade only to get concessional rate of duty and therefore the personal penalty imposed is justifiable - Held that: the goods were assessed on the basis of transaction value declared by the importer. Amendments in documents filed with customs are to be allowed in the discretion of the proper officer subject to his satisfaction that the amendment is for bona fide reasons - Held that: the gain that the importer was planning to make stands negated substantially due to payment of duty at higher rate of duty on higher value and there is a case for reduction in the redemption fine and penalty - Appeal is partly allowed
-
2011 (9) TMI 785
Search and seizure - The officials were merely acting in discharge of their official duties. The goods exported by the complainant were seized and it was found that the value of the goods had not been properly disclosed by the complainant - In the present case, no money has been paid by the complainant to the accused. Only an oral allegation has been levelled against the official John Joseph that a demand of ₹ 25,00,000/- had been made by him - . One of the petitions has been filed by Union of India seeking quashing of the complaint on behalf of its official and one petition has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint by the officials themselves - In case the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, then in every case of raid or seizure it would be difficult for an official to perform his duty fearlessly - Petitions are allowed
-
2011 (9) TMI 784
Grant of reward - informer - The Petitioner claims to be entitled to a reward representing 20% of the value of the goods confiscated and duty recovered. - Held that:- The basic principle which underlies the grant of a reward is that it is an ex-gratia and not a matter of right. This aspect has been emphasised in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy (2003 -TMI - 46829 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - the case of the Petitioner has not even been considered by the Committee. Both under the original guidelines of 20 June 2001 and the amended guidelines which were issued on 16 April 2004 the power to determine as to whether a reward should be granted is delegated to a Committee which is constituted depending upon the amount involved - Decided in favor of the petitioner by way of direction that the claim of the Petitioner for the grant of a reward shall be evaluated by the Committee in accordance with the relevant Guidelines which hold the field
-
2011 (9) TMI 783
The assessee filed a bill of entry dated 21-8-2003 for clearance of 1,70,050 pieces of Melamine spoons classified under Chapter sub-heading 3924.90 with concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 26/2000 - show cause notice is issued in terms of law and passed an order-in-original holding that the assessee is liable for payment of duty, interest and penalty - Apex Court in the case of Metal Forgings v. Union of India reported in (2002 -TMI - 46358 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), where it has been held that issue of show cause notice is a mandatory requirement for raising demands and that communications/orders suggestions or advises from the Department cannot be deemed to be a show cause notice, held that the letter issued by the Department cannot be treated as show cause notice and therefore the entire proceedings is vitiated - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 782
Refund - Unjust enrichment - it was contended that the penalty and redemption fine was paid at the time of releasing the goods to avoid demurrages and challenge the Order-in-Original imposing fine and penalty which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order - Revenue today cannot argue against their own circular, though the point put forth is that the CBEC’s Circular dated 2-1-2002 will be only applicable in the case of pre-deposit as ordered by the High Court - Held that: as per the procedure of accounting the amount to be received as refund can be shown as receivables. In any case, this point may not be of much relevance so long as the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply here - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (9) TMI 781
Waiver of pre-deposit - whether the enhanced rate of cess would apply to sugar already cleared from the factory after payment of applicable rate of cess on the date of clearance lying in their godown - the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar - sugar was cleared from their factory after 1-1-2008, by paying cess at the rate of Rs. 15/- per quintal. However, the rate of cess was increased with effect from 1-3-2008 from Rs. 15/- per quintal to Rs. 24/- per quintal - Section 3(4) of Sugar Cess Act, 1982 makes it clear that all the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder shall apply in relation to the levy and collection of said cess - Held that: the appellant has been able to make out a good case in their favour so as to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty - Stay petition are allowed
-
2011 (9) TMI 780
Offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Application for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate - It is contended that the respondents being at large is likely to prejudice a fair investigation, since he is an influential person in the hierarchy of the company who can influence witnesses - The Special PP submits that the offence which the respondent has committed attracts punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and, therefore, is a serious economic offence, affecting the revenue and therefore the learned Magistrate should have seen that the investigation in this case would be hampered by the respondents being at large - Since Sections 13, 19, 20 and 21 are the only sections in the Act which deal with persons arrested, from the reading of these sections it appears that the first option which the officer has is to admit the accused to bail and the second option is to forward him to a Magistrate - The Department had already applied before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent had not attended the office of the applicant in terms of the order on which the respondent was bailed out - Needless to mention, the respondent would keep himself in good physical shape so that he does not have any occasion to again breach the order of the Magistrate - Application is rejected
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
