|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 558 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 146
Interest on the refund amount of pre-deposit and sale proceeds of confiscated goods – order for absolute confiscation of gold bars on 22.05.98 – Commissioner (Customs) vide order dated 11.12.01 permitted for release of 21 gold biscuits in de-novo proceedings – gold bars being sold by Department on 09.03.01 – Held that:- In view of decision in case of Miles India Ltd. Vs ACC (1984 - TMI - 41925 - Supreme Court Of India) holding that the authorities created by a statute are governed by the provisions of statute, it is laid down that in as much as there is no provision regarding payment of interest in respect of sale proceeds of confiscated goods, the same cannot be ordered. Since Commissioner has not given any finding regarding interest on refund of pre-deposit, matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority – Decided partly in favor of Revenue.
-
2012 (2) TMI 145
Recovery of duty - Petition filed to restrain the respondents from proceeding further, pursuant to the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai - appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, against the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai - Supreme Court had ordered the issuance of notices to the respondents, on 7.3.2011- Held that:- In given circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 144
Whether use of brand name of a person, who is director of the respondents company amounts to use of same brand name of another person so as to disallow the benefit of SSI - Commissioner(Appeals) decided in favor of assessee based on earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee – Revenue challenged the order of Tribunal before the higher appellate forum - Held that:-The said appeal stands rejected by Supreme Court vide order dtd. 01.04.10. Hence, earlier order of the Tribunal stands confirmed and has attained finality – Decided against the Revenue.
-
2012 (2) TMI 143
Whether duty is leviable on clearing of samples in the laboratory situated in the factory premises – assessee contended that samples were meant for testing - Held that:- In view of decision in case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Dabur India Ltd (2010 - TMI - 206171 - Himachal Pradesh High Court), the samples drawn for testing and not cleared from the factory are not required to discharge any duty liability – Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 140
2G Spectrum Scam – whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court dismissed the petition on ground that investigation is in progress hence decision on the application of the appellant either to grant or refuse the sanction cannot be taken - Held that:- There is no provision either in the 1988 Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offense. Further, while considering the issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which the Competent Authority is required to see is whether the material placed by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of an offense. If satisfied, then it is required to grant sanction. The Competent Authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations made against the public servant are true. In Vineet Narain's case, time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution was granted with additional one month, however in present case, due to failure of officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to apprise respondent No.1 about seriousness of allegations made by the appellant matter lingered for a period of more than one year. In result, order of High Court is set aside, and right granted to appellant to file a complaint for prosecuting respondent No.2. At the same time, it is directed that in future every Competent Authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) SC and the guidelines framed by the CVC - Decided in favor of petitioner
-
2012 (2) TMI 138
Appeal for release of consignment – Non-presence of CESTAT, Chennai during proceedings – plea for transfer of appeal to co-ordinate Bench of CESTAT, Karnatka - Held that:- Petitioner may be permitted to make an application, before the third respondent, requesting him to pass an administrative order transferring the matter from the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, to its co-ordinate bench sitting at Bangalore, within a specified time, as per law.
-
2012 (2) TMI 137
TDS - Payments made to agents of foreign shipping Co. - No application filed with AO under 195(2) - Held That:- Payments made to the agents of foreign shipping companies are claimed to be not taxable in India and there is no material produced before us to controvert the said claim. As per Circular no. 723 dated 19.9.95 in case of ships belonging to non-resident, provisions of section 194C and 195 are not applicable. Apex court in view of G.E.India Technology Centre was of the same view that provisions of 195 and 195(2) cannot be applied.
-
2012 (2) TMI 136
Disallowance of Sundry balance written off and Traveling Expense as no details were submitted - Held That:- Details only gave the name of the party, amount, date and no further details as to whether these were taken into account in computation of income of earlier years etc. is not available. Similarly, in respect of traveling expenses, the details given are only the date wise payments made to Deep Tours & Travels.CAse remanded back to AO for fresh perusal giving an opportunity to assessee.
Disallowance of expense in relation to exempt Income - A/Y 06-07 thus Rule 8D not applicable - Held That:- In view of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd case remanded back.
Manufacture - conversion of rough marble blocks into polished and finished marble slabs, tiles, table tops - Held That:- The end product was recognized as commercial product distinct from the input.Reliance placed on Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000 - TMI - 5818 - SUPREME Court), decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 135
Sale/Purchase of Shares assessable under "Capital Gain" or "Business Income" - Held That:- Assessee hold shares for more than One year and upto ten year - Investments have been mostly from Owned Funds - main objects was to make investments. Therefore such income shall be treated as Capital Gain and not business Income.
-
2012 (2) TMI 134
Assessee dealer in diamonds - sale not accounted in books - No confirmation by M/s Alpha Exports sale was on approval basis - Held That:- The contention of assessee cannot be accepted as if the transaction was on approval the question on encashing the cheque do not arise.
Bad Debt - Held That:- When the sales were not recorded in books, party cannot be treated as Bad Debt thus there was no occasion or question to write off the said debt as irrecoverable in the books of account.
Normal Profit in diamond business around 2% to 8% additions assessed income on higher side - Held That:- When a confirmed sale has been made to M/s export
there has to be a confirmed purchase of corresponding diamonds. As regards the purchase price of diamonds made by the assessee from M/s White Diamonds Industries Ltd., it is observed that the same has been shown by the assessee himself at Rs.3,36,619/- and there is nothing brought on record by the assessee to show that it was actually more. Decided against assesee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 133
Search - Unaccounted Cash to be settled against Advance Tax liability - Held That:- Search conducted on 19.1.09 and advance tax liability was due on 15.03.09, before conduct of search assessee wrote a letter to the Additional Director to adjust the cash towards his liability and the liabilities of the associates. Assessee had no intention to shrink his liability thus CIT(A) has rightly allowed adjustment of cash against Advance tax.
-
2012 (2) TMI 132
Period Of Limitation - AO passed order on 27.2.97 - afresh order passed on 31.03.97 - No variance in order facts were on record ever since original order - Held That:- Order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction on 20.2.2001 is clearly out of time insofar as it relates to order dated 27.2.1997 relating to the assessment year 1994-95. Tribunal correct in rejecting order of CIT.
-
2012 (2) TMI 124
Dis-allowance of bad debts – share broker - Revenue did not doubted share transaction and that amount has been written off in the books of account of the assessee - objection regarding whether the transaction resulting in bad debt were undertaken in the individual capacity of B. Ahuja(client) or on behalf of the company employing him - dis-allowance of interest paid on delayed payment to NSE, DSE – revenue contending it to be penalty – Tribunal deleted aforesaid dis-allowances - Held that:- Deduction is allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) in view of decision in case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010 - TMI - 76626 - Supreme Court ) holding that after 1st April, 1989, it is enough if the bad debt is written off in the books of accounts of the assessee and it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. Revenue has not been able to controvert findings of Tribunal and show that the payment was, in fact, in nature of penalty and not normal interest on delayed payment. Deletion of dis-allowance is upheld – Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 123
Pre-emptive purchase u/s 269UD – allocation of residential plot on 24.02.94 – Assignee of letter of allocation entering into agreement with builders for development of plot on 12.06.96 – Revenue contending evaluation of FMV of property on the date when form 37-I was filed i.e. 25.08.2000 – petitioner contending for evaluation on date of agreement – Held that:- Division Bench in the order dated 18.10.2010 while remitting matter back observed that the private agreement can be looked into by the Appropriate Authority. From the past history of transaction it is obvious that the parties had contracted on the basis of the then prevailing market rate of land. Moreover, this sale consideration is comparable with other instances in which the Appropriate Authority had granted the permission/No Objection Certificate during the relevant period. Therefore, condition stipulated in Section 269UD of difference being more than 15% between the fair market value and the apparent sale consideration is not satisfied. Hence, impugned order is set aside and direction is issued to Appropriate authority to grant permission/No Objection Certificate within stipulated time. See DLF Universal Ltd (2000 - TMI - 5795 - SUPREME Court) – Decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (2) TMI 122
Education society registered u/s 12A – denial of registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) – discrepancies in accounts pointed out on the basis of the records produced during the course of proceedings u/s 10(23C)(vi) - Held that:-Prescribed authority is required to examine various aspects and thereafter issue directions/stipulations and impose conditions. On violation of the said conditions and stipulations, it is open to the prescribed authority to cancel the registration. The distinction between assessment proceedings and proceeding under Section 10(23C)(vi) has been explained and elucidated by the Supreme Court in case of American Hotel and Lodging Association Education Institute (2008 (5) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Order of remit is being passed to decide the application for registration u/s 10(23C) (vi) of the Act afresh. Further, interim order passed on 28.11.2011 staying the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2009-10, is vacated and comes to an end. It will be open to the A.O. to proceed in accordance with law.
-
2012 (2) TMI 121
Validity of notice issued u/s 147/148 – Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A) declaring that the notices u/s 147/148 were void as the words "Pvt. Ltd." were missing – asseseee filed declarations under VDIS 1997 – in view of same notices were issued u/s 147/ 148 for A.Y. 1992-93 to 1995-96 – Held that:- It has not been held by the Tribunal or the CIT (A) that there was misnomer or misdescription because the words 'Private Limited' were missing in 4 out of 5 notices though the name "Jagat Novel Exhibitors" were clear. Therefore, it has not resulted in misnomer or misdescription of parties which is fatal and makes the entire proceedings null and void – Decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2012 (2) TMI 120
Deduction of lease equalization charges from lease rental income - lease equalization charges is a method of re-calibrating the depreciation – debits and credits of same to P&L A/c square off each other over the full term of lease period – Revenue contending for dis-allowance of same on ground that there is no provision for it under the I.T. Act - whether in determination of the real income of the assessee recourse can be taken by the assessee to the Guidance Note issued by ICAI - Held that:- As long as the method employed for accounting of income meets with the rudimentary principles of accountancy, one of which, includes offering only revenue income for tax, we cannot find fault with the assessee debiting lease equalization charges in the AYs in issue, in its P&L A/c. This represents true and fair view of the accounts; a statutory requirement u/s 211(2) of the Companies Act. As explained by us, the rationale is that over the entirety of the lease period the said debit would work itself out – Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 119
Deduction u/s 80HHC – whether to be allowed on basis of adjusted book profits u/s 115JA or profit arrived at on the regular basis - Held that - Deduction u/s 80HHC in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit and not on the basis of the profit computed under the regular provisions of law. See DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd (2007 - TMI - 59552 - ITAT BOMBAY-H ) - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 118
Transfer petition - validity of Section 80HHC challenged – Held that:- Looking to the large number of matters pending in various High Courts and since the question relates to vires, it would be beneficial if all the matters are decided by one High Court in the Country. Therefore, all the matters which have been filed/transferred to this Court be sent to the High Court of Gujarat.
-
2012 (2) TMI 117
Setting off loss of share trading against income from service charges – both falling under same head “PGBP” - Revenue contending loss in share trading to be speculative loss – Held that:- The explanation to sub section (1) of section 73 provides a deeming definition of when a company is deemed to be carrying on a speculation business, however, applying the provisions of Section 73(1) to determine whether a company is carrying on speculation business would reverse the order of application. In present case, Tribunal was justified, in holding that the assessee fell within the purview of the exception carved out in the explanation to Section 73 and that consequently the assessee would not be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business for the purpose of Sec. 73(1) – Decided in favor of assessee.
....
|
9911796707
