Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 501 to 520 of 871 Records

• 2012 (5) TMI 375
  

  Cenvat credit - technical knowhow imported - assessee paid service tax on royalty and took CENVAT credit thereof under the head 'Intellectual Property Service – Held that:- technical knowhow imported by the appellant consisted of product technology and process technology. If that be so, it requires to be examined as to whether these technologies had any nexus with the manufacture of automobile parts as required by the statutory definition of input service. This aspect could be examined only with reference to the terms and conditions of the licence agreement. appeal stands allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 374
  

  CENVAT credit - appellant has a scheme of having tobacco of good quality produced by a select group of farmers. Under this scheme, they supply tobacco seeds free of cost to the farmers and also arrange necessary advice to be given to them by experts - agreement between the appellant and M/s. Supreme Detective and Security Services. Under this agreement dated 18.04.2006 between the appellant and M/s. Supreme Detective and Security Services (SDSS for short), the latter was liable to provide certain services mentioned in an annexure to the agreement, to the farmers within the prescribed time – Held that:- appellant is the service-recipient as they paid for the services of M/s. SDSS and did not recover the same from the farmers and (b) that they have established a nexus between the services and the manufacture of their final product (cigarettes) by showing that the services were ultimately utilized for producing good quality tobacco which was required for the manufacture of good quality cigarettes and also by including the cost of services in the cost of production of cigarettes. The services thus fit in the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Hence the appellant rightly availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the services. appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 373
  

  CENVAT credit on "Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy services – Held that:- in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein the credit on the Group Insurance Health Policy was allowed. department has not taken whether Service Tax paid on the Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy was included in the assessable value or not was not part of the show-cause notice or any other subsequent proceedings, the department rake up the same now. Appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 372
  

  Demand of service tax - Clearing and Forwarding services received - Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that the demand is not sustainable since the show cause notice was issued under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 and on the day on which show cause notice was issued, the Section 73 was not applicable in respect of short levy arising in respect of the ST - 3 returns filed under Section 71A – Held that:- if provisions of section 71A are not incorporated under section 73, no demand can be raised for the violation of the same, the liability does not arise and demands cannot be sustained. provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 were amended from 10.09.2004 by incorporating violation of Section 71A, for issuance of show cause notice. show cause notice has been issued on 19.05.2004, i.e., prior to amendment of Section 73. appeal filed by the revenue rejected

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 371
  

  Whether the group insurance service provided to them under 'medi-claim policy' for the welfare of assessee's employees by the insurer was an input service under Rule 2 (l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the assesse – Held that:- After considering the nexus of the service to the business of the assessee, the Bench included the service within the ambit of the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' and granted the consequential benefit of CENVAT credit to the assessee. assessee's appeal allowed

  CENVAT Credit on GTA Service - whether GTA Service could be considered as an 'input service' as defined under Rule 2 (l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- in the case of M/s. ABB Ltd. GTA Service is an ‘input service' within the statutory definition of this expression. appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 370
  

  Reassessment - notice u/s 148 - held that:- The assessee had filed and furnished all details and particulars relating to the royalty payment including agreements, calculation and the approval. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct all material facts. - Writ of certiorari issued and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and order dated 24.3.2011 dismissing the objections to the reassessment proceeding passed by the Assessing Officer quashed. - The re-assessment order also quashed.

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 369
  

  Treatment of an amount as income even though the assessee has disclosed the value of goods as part of closing stock - held that:- Tribunal misconstrued the clauses in the agreement to hold that the value of the closing stock had to be treated as income of the assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 368
  

  Accrual of expenses - whether provision for hank yarn obligation is allowable as a deduction in this assessment year when the assessee has not fulfilled its obligation and textile commissioner had extended the time for fulfilment till 31.3.95 - held that:- when the liability admitted is of reasonable certainty, the mere fact that the actual quantification might take place in the next year, per se, would not stand in the way of the assessee being granted the deduction. The assessee, admittedly, is maintaining the account on mercantile basis. In that event, the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. C.I.T.) (2000 (8) TMI 4 (SC)), directly applies to the facts of the case. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 367
  

  Revision u/s 263 - on the issues regarding assessment of capital gain on mutual funds as business income and the capital contribution received from partner companies as deemed dividend U/S 2(22)(e) of the Act though both the issues are highly debatable and two opinions are possible - The only activity carried on by the assessee during the year under consideration was purchase and sale of mutual funds and securities - It is the claim of the assessee that by modifying clause (2) of the partnership deed the transactions entered into by the assessee become investments made by the assessee and recouping of the same investment - On the issue of applicability of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, it was contended by the Ld DR that the Assessing Officer did not examine this issue at all. It was submitted by him that if the Assessing Officer failed to make enquiry which was required to be made, the Ld CIT can assume jurisdiction u/s 263 - Held that: the Ld CIT was justified in coming to the conclusion that the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Assessing Officer has failed to take into consideration Circular No.4/2007 dated 15.6.209097 and Instruction No.1527 dated 31st August, 1989 of the CBDT while computing the total income of the assessee - Appeal is rejected

  Regarding applicability of section 2(22)(e) - Ld CIT in his order u/s 263 of the Act has directed the Assessing Officer to enquire as to whether the partnership deed by which the assessee came into being was a device or not and if it was a device whether section 2(22)(e) of the Act was attracted in assessee's case - Held that: Ld. CIT has given specific finding on certain issues even though he has directed the AO to reframe the assessment as per the correct provisions of law and after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. We are of the considered opinion that he was not justified in giving such specific findings - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to AO

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 366
  

  Additions made by the AO due to non-submissions of confirmations by the parties against enquiry letters issued u/s 133(6) – treating the entire transactions to the said 17 parties as bogus entries and made an addition of Rs.3,72,31,524/ - CIT(A) held the findings of the AO in the assessment order and in the remand report to be unsubstantiated – Held that:- AO’s contention that there is no further verification possible due to absence of contact details provided in the affidavits of the concerned parties is not reasonable as he himself had issued inquiry letters u/s 133(6) – verification of the books of accounts and bills and vouchers could be done during the remand - CIT(A) gave a finding that the books of account are found to be audited by the tax auditors, wherein no such infirmities are noted in the maintenance of the books of account and depicting no change in G.P - findings given by the CIT(A) are proper and no infirmity in the order - against revenue .

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 365
  

  Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - The main thrust of the argument by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is that penalty is required to be knocked down simply on the basis that AO has failed to apply his mind because notice has been issued without specifying the allegation as AO has simply tick marked the column "for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" in the show cause notice - it is clear that what court observed was that "concealment and filing of inaccurate particulars" are two different requirements - A plain reading of the above clearly shows that the combined meaning of sec.271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is that if assessee has filed inaccurate particulars and such person offers an explanation which is not bona fide or offers no explanation, then penalty is leviable - Noticing that the assessee had given an explanation, vide its letter dated March 22, 2006, giving reasons for claim-ing the interest as a deduction, the Tribunal was of the view that the onus shifted on the Revenue to prove that the explanation offered by the asses-see was false - if a claim is patently wrong, as in the case before us, then merely because such claim has been made through books of accounts cannot be said that assessee has disclosed full and true particulars of income - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 364
  

  Transfer pricing - arm's length price - Principle of natural justice - Deduction u/s 10A - international transactions in the nature of provision of contract software development - High Court in the case CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P.) Ltd. [2006 -TMI - 9467 - DELHI High Court] wherein it was held that for rejecting the view taken in earlier assessment years, there must be material change in the fact, situation or in law. In this case, clearly there is neither any change in the fact, situation or in law. Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to AO

  Regarding short recognition of income under BSNL project - Held that-: on this issue it has been urged by the assessee that the addition to income was made on the basis of revenue, as per advance purchase order. In this regard, it has been argued that this was done without considering the actual purchase order, produced before the DRP by way of application u/r 4 of the IT (DRP) Rules, 2009.

  Regarding marketing expenses - During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer has considered the cost of mobile handsets issued to employees, AMSCs and Dealers free of cost and stock scrapped as capital assets on the basis that the assessee continues to be the owner of theses handsets and these handsets are not part of the trading activities of the assessee. Held that: High Court had remitted the matter for Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2001-02 to the file of the ITAT and the ITAT vide order dated 22.9.2011 has remanded back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to fresh consideration. – Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to AO.

  Regarding disallowance of 25 per cent of the provision for obsolescence – Held that: - dismissal of the ground raised by the assessee in respect of provision for obsolescence would not preclude the assessee from giving the information to sustain the claim in subsequent assessment years and that once such information is provided, the Assessing Officer would give due consideration to the same. - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to AO.

  Regarding disallowance of excess depreciation - Held that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in [2010 - TMI - 78240 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Income Tax] C.I.T. v. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. wherein it was held that the Court was in agreement with the view of the tribunal that the computer peripherals such as printer, scanner etc. form an integral part of computer system. – Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 363
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - delay in service of notice - period of limitation for initiating penalty proceedings - CIT(A) observed that delays in service of notices and orders are routine and natural, even if they are sent by speed post or courier, and much cannot be inferred based just on such delay in service. - CIT(A) has extracted order sheet entries from the record and took note of the sequence of events and concluded that it is almost impossible for the Assessing Officer to back date the order, since the Assessing Officer would have to change too many records, which is again impossible to do. - Decided against the assessee.

  Regarding penalty - Held that: the words 'return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of sub section (1) of s. 139', cannot be read without the words 'income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income' preceding the aforesaid words and if we read the complete sentence which is comprising out of words "has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in clause (a) or (b) of sub section (1) of section 139" - So far as assessee's case is concerned it is an admitted fact that the assessee has disclosed an additional income and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to the immunity available under clause (2) of Explanation 5 of S.271(1)(c) of the Act for all these assessment years - Appeals are partly allowed

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 362
  

  Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance u/s 14A - speculation loss - carry forward of the balance of speculation loss - held that:- since the eligibility period of carry forward of speculation loss incurred in the year 2001-02 has already expired in the assessment year 2005-06, the ld. AO had wrongly allowed the assessee to carry forward of the balance speculation loss of Rs.80.15 crores as claimed by the assessee beyond 2005-06. - it is evident that the AO has not applied his mind on the issues. - The ld. AO has not made a clear finding whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward the speculation losses beyond four years by virtue of the amendments brought in the Act for the relevant assessment year. Further the ld.CIT has also not adjudicated the issue but only remitted the matter back to the file of the AO to re-do the assessment after due consideration and as per law. - matter remanded back.

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 361
  

  Application for waiver to an amount which was the balance amount due from the deceased assessee. - Application under section 220(2A) - learned counsel for the Revenue would but contend that with respect to the question of hardship the Commissioner has found the hardship only with respect to further payment of interest and no hardship has been found with respect to the amounts already adjusted towards the interest - In the instant case, what was stated by the Commissioner was that certain amounts were already paid by way of adjustment or otherwise and that certain amounts remained unpaid - Held that: The standing counsel for the Revenue would also contend that the waiver of interest was limited to that remaining unpaid since the amount adjusted cannot be taken to be having been paid - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 360
  

  Business income or capital gain - appellant has purchased and sold shares to realize the profit based on share price movements. Normally, this is done by some one who is the activity of share trading - principally it does not seems to be a case of mistake because if it was really a mistake then the broker would not have given the profit to the assessee because in the reverse situation i.e. if it was a case of loss assessee would not have made payment of loss to the broker. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the broker has accepted that it was a case of mistake by him - When these few transactions are considered with the transactions regarding sale of shares of Wyeth Ltd., which were held for almost 10 years, it becomes clear that assessee is only an investor and cannot be called a trader - transactions of sale and purchase of shares have to be assessed under the head "capital gains" only - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 359
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery – Held that:- appeals filed with the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee did not mention the date of speed post, nothing stood in the way of the appellate authority verifying the records of the department relating to the above dispatch to find out the correct date of dispatch of the Orders-in-Original. It appears from the impugned order that no attempt was made in this regard. There is yet another infirmity in the appellate Commissioner's order. After holding the appeals to be time-barred, he embarked on discussion on merits and took a view on the substantive issue. If an appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) is really belated beyond the condonable period of limitation prescribed under Sec.128 of the Customs Act, it has only to be rejected on that ground and there shall be no discussion on merits, appeals are allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 358
  

  Affixing of MRP on imported goods - sale to institutional consumers - Valuation for the purpose of levy of CVD - Manufacture - meaning to the definition of 'manufacturer' given under Rule 2(h) – Held that:- appellant has given a distorted meaning to the definition of 'manufacturer' given under Rule 2(h) - There is nothing in the definition of 'manufacturer' to show that mere affixture of trade mark would suffice the requirement of the inclusive definition. - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 357
  

  Whether the appellants are entitled to take CENVAT credit on the strength of supplementary invoices which has been raised on them by their supplier as per the agreement - there was an agreement between the supplier and the appellants that if the appellants failed to lift the required quantity, the price of the cracked ammonia gas will be changed and extra amount for that shall be charged from the appellants for which these supplementary invoices has been raised on the appellants on which proper duty has been paid by the supplier – Held that:- in the case of MDS Switchgear Ltd. (2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT - Central Excise) as the supplementary invoice has been raised for the minimum agreed quantity by the appellant is nothing but the escalated amount of the goods received by them, appellants are entitled to take the credit on the strength of the supplementary invoices, appeals are allowed

  ---

• 2012 (5) TMI 356
  

  Personal penalty on Director - held that:- Admittedly the manufacturer having paid the entire duty, interest along with 25% of penalty within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of show cause notice, the proceedings are required to be held as conclusive in respect of the manufacturer as also in respect of the co-noticees. As such, separate imposition of penalty on the Director is not called for. - The Revenue's appeal rejected.

  ---

1 ....222324252627282930........ 44