|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 863 Records
-
2008 (2) TMI 391
The Stamp Act, 1899 nowhere prescribes any expiry date for use of a stamp paper. Section 54 merely provides that a person possessing a stamp paper for which he has no immediate use (which is not spoiled or rendered unfit or useless), can seek refund of the value thereof by surrendering such stamp paper to the Collector provided it was purchased within the period of six months next preceding the date on which it was so surrendered. The stipulation of the period of six months prescribed in Section 54 is only for the purpose of seeking refund of the value of the unused stamp paper, and not for use of the stamp paper. Section 54 does not require the person who has purchased a stamp paper, to use it within six months. Therefore, there is no impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to the proposed date of execution, being used for a document. The Stamp Rules, 1925 applicable to Tamil Nadu, do not contain any provision that the stamp papers of required value should be purchased together from the same vendor with consecutive serial numbers.
-
2008 (2) TMI 390
Delay in filing the appeal - appellant’s factory was sealed by the Customs – impugned order was served upon the appellant by fixing the same on the outside of the factory premises - it is the appellant’s case that the entire documents were lying inside the factory, thus making and filing the appeal was impossible for them - It is also on record that Director of the appellant was under detention during the period - late filing of the appeal is not on account of any lapse on the part of the appellant - COD applications allowed
-
2008 (2) TMI 389
Imposition of penalty on Director - At the time of framing the charge, it cannot be said that there is a strict onus on the part of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner in no way was connected with the affairs of the company - Simply because at the pre-charge stage, no evidence has come, prosecution cannot be precluded to improve its case – U/S 9(c) of CEA, mental state on the part of the accused is to be presumed and there shall be a defence known to each accused to prove that there was no such mental state – petition dismissed
-
2008 (2) TMI 388
Interpretation of provisions in Chapter XII-G, relating to the income of shipping companies - petitioner application for opting the tonnage tax scheme was rejected by the Additional Commissioner- Addl. Commissioner on basis of Memorandum holding that business of operating ships was not a main object of assessee, was illegal – this order is quashed – however finding that income from shipping business and the income from the qualifying ship form only a small portion out of the gross income of the company, is one which rests on facts, therefore it is improper to subject it to judicial review in writ jurisdiction
-
2008 (2) TMI 387
Disallowance of expenditure u/s 43B - AO, while rectifying its earlier order, disallowed Rs. 49,59,304 on account of provident fund (PF) being paid after due dates and Rs. 57,184 on account of ESI contribution not paid within due date - CIT (Appeals) deleted the said addition on the ground that the issues were debatable and that all the payments have been made within grace period - ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of Ld. CIT (A) holding that since the issue is debatable and therefore is not rectifiable u/s 154
-
2008 (2) TMI 386
Loss on account of forfeiture of share application money of the assessee - consequent to the assessee’s default in not paying the balance of money on allotment, its right in the shares stood extinguished on its forfeiture - loss suffered by the assessee, i.e, non-recovery of share application money is consequent to the forfeiture of its right in the shares and the same is to be understood to be within the scope and ambit of transfer - Tribunal was justified in holding that it would amount to short-term capital loss to the assessee
-
2008 (2) TMI 385
Claim for special deduction u/s 80HHC - Supreme Court in the case of A. M. Moosa, observed that word ‘profit’ in section 80HHC(1) and (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, means a positive profit – therefore, Tribunal was not correct in holding that the negative export profits should be ignored when aggregating the total turnover including other exports in view of the specific definition adduced in section 80HHC r.w.s. 80AB for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC
-
2008 (2) TMI 384
Availability of capital goods Cenvat credit - Credit on M.S. angles, MS plates, Channels, rods, beams, HR plates, HR coils & AI coils used by the appellants in the fabrication of sugar manufacturing equipment and structures – such items becomes part and parcel of machinery so they are entitled for Modvat credit as capital goods – in respect of items used for construction of steel structure of the factory shed, asessee is not eligible for Cenvat credit
-
2008 (2) TMI 383
Assessee engaged in kury business and financing. The wage settlement with the employees expired on 31.7.1992, i.e. towards the middle of the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1993-94. Negotiations for settlement were going on in the previous year and the actual agreement approving wage increase with effect from 1.8.1992 was signed on 9.6.1993. This was approved by the Government by order dated 20.10.1993. The assessee claimed increased wages payable to the employees during the previous year as a deduction in the return filed for the assessment year 1993-94. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the ground that liability arose under the agreement approved by the Government in the succeeding year. - Held that deduction allowed as claimed by the assessee on the ground that by the time the accounts were finalised and returns were filed, the assessee had ascertained the actual liability attributable to the previous year and therefore the actual amount payable only was claimed based on mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee.
-
2008 (2) TMI 382
Strictures against department – department is making attempt to recover the demand by any means i.e. by hook or crook – demand from both job-worker and principal - tribunal has set aside the demand raised against job-worker – subsequently department proceeding against principal-respondent and by invoking extended period – held that approach of department is not correct – revenues’ appeal dismissed – no question of law arise
-
2008 (2) TMI 381
DFCE benefit - Held that Grievance Redressal Committee of the Ministry of Commerce was chaired by DGFT and is approved at the highest level – so decision of Committee is valid and binding – decision of Committee cannot be kept in abeyance mere for the reason that it affects adversely a government stand in any proceeding - Therefore, petitioner, a status holder, is eligible for a Duty Free Credit Entitlement (DFCE) benefit as per Export and Import Policy 2002-2007
-
2008 (2) TMI 380
Drawback fraud – Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail - petitioner has rightly pointed out that there is no question of any custodial interrogation since in case of detention, the petitioner has to be sent to judicial remand - Custom Authorities unlike the police cannot take the petitioner into custody for custodial interrogation - anticipatory bail granted subjected to condition that petitioner will cooperate during investigation and release of amount of drawback frozen not be to be sought
-
2008 (2) TMI 379
Prosecution – effect of exoneration in quasi judicial proceedings on criminal proceedings - If exoneration in the adjudication proceedings are based on evidences and are on merits and the concerned persons being found innocent, then criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue – framing of charges against petitioner not justified – department is not serious in defending its case – cost imposed on department and recoverable from relevant negligent officer
-
2008 (2) TMI 377
Whether rectification proceedings can be initiated by AO u/s 154 when notice u/s 143(2) had already been issued – addition tax levied under section 143 (1A) as in the meanwhile notice under section 143(2) of the Act, had already been initiated – held that no action under section 154 could be initiated once notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee
-
2008 (2) TMI 376
Premature availment of service tax credit in one month earlier - appellants submits that this was a procedural lapse on the part of the appellant in availing advance service tax credit prior to the payment of service tax of input service availed by them but ultimate credit is available to them in the next month – since appellant is ready to pay interest for the intervening period, entire credit cannot be denied to them and penalty is not imposable on them
-
2008 (2) TMI 375
Deduction of income tax by the employer from the gratuity amount - contention that the gratuity amount is also liable for income-tax is rejected - Income-tax Act excludes the gratuity amount to the extent of limit prescribed under the IT Act - Hence, deduction of income-tax by the Corporation is contrary to S. 10(10) (iii) - in so far as the deduction towards damage is concerned, which was caused to bus due to accident by employee, employer is entitled to deduct damages from the gratuity amount
-
2008 (2) TMI 374
Imported Mild Steel flat bars mis-declared as MS Scrap metal - Even though the tribunal held that there was mis-declaration, they still cancelled the demand of duty on the higher value on ground that there is violation of Rule 4(2) of CVR, 1988 - Held that when there is mis-declaration, the transaction value declared automatically goes – revenue has right to challenge the valuation once there is mis-declaration - Tribunal not right in holding that department is not entitled to reject T.V.
-
2008 (2) TMI 373
Jurisdiction of CIT to pass order u/s 263 - preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 were not fulfilled – AO partially disallowing the claim u/s 80I – Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of assessee against the AO’s order – subsequently, Commissioner u/s 263 in revision order disallowed the claim – since it is not a case of an order prejudicial to revenue, Tribunal is not justified in upholding the exercise of powers under section 263 by Commissioner of Income Tax to be valid
-
2008 (2) TMI 372
Land purchased on which party constructed building existed which was not usable – land is an asset assessable to wealth tax u/s 40(3)(v) - held that section 40(3)(v) will not apply to any unused land held by the assessee for construction of hotel for a period of two years from the date of acquisition – land is exempted from tax only for period of 2 years from date of acquisition - matter is remanded to AO for determining the value of the land and thereafter to pass appropriate order
-
2008 (2) TMI 371
Applicant, provider of security services - applicant submits that applicant is a sub-contractor and as per the agreement, the main contractor was required to pay the service tax and that the same has been paid by them - Since the service tax stands paid already by the main contractor, there was no question of demanding again from applicant - If any pre-deposit is ordered, it will amount to ordering recovery of service tax twice on the same services - prima facie strong case for complete waiver
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
