|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 654 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 652 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 2001 is prospective and would apply only from the assessment year 2002-03 and not retrospectively and for this proposition relied on the judgement of the Kerala High Court in CIT v/s. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Limited (2003) 183 CTR (Ker.) 182. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal cited above, we uphold the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the ground." 13. There is no change in the facts and the issue involved in the year under consideration before us, hence, respectfully following these decisions (Supra) the issue involved in ground no. 4 of the appeal of the Revenue is decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and accordingly order of CIT (A) in this regard is upheld and ground no. 4 of the appeal of the Revenue is rejected. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e. 21st November 2007 immediately after the hearing of the case in the presence of both the parties.
-
2007 (11) TMI 651 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of this court in 290 ITR-598 Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Producin Pvt. Ltd. contends that interest received by the assessee on the fixed deposit has to be treated as income from business only. According to him, money was invested in fixed deposit only to get benefit of letter of credit and not to invest money to earn any interest. In other words, he contends that in connection with the assessee’s business, fixed deposits were made in the bank. Therefore, any interst accrued thereon has to be treated as business income and not as income from other sources. In the aforesaid judgment, this court has taken a similar view. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that question of law framed in this case has to be answered in favour of the assessee. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed an the order passed by the revisional authority which has been confirmed by the tribunal are hereby set aside. Order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 650 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... T(A) and confirm the findings of the CIT(A). Accordingly both these grounds are dismissed. 62. Ground No. 5.3 is that the CIT(A) is not correct in not appreciating that the same yardstick of multiplying the unrecorded expenses by 3 times is to be adopted as in the case of unrecorded sales arrived. 63. We have already held in the foregoing paras that estimation of income is not possible by placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar (supra). Applying the same, we hold that estimation of expenses is also not possible. Accordingly this ground of appeal by the assessee is rejected. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 are general in nature and accordingly both the grounds are dismissed. 64. The assessee has raised additional grounds during the course of hearing which are not in conformity with the Tribunal Rules, 1963 and hence the additional grounds are accordingly dismissed. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... event, there is no dispute that these items were used as raw materials of the capital goods and, therefore, there is no reason for denial of the credit on these items. 5. On the denial of credit on Asbestos Graphite Packing, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that these packings were used to prevent leakage in the pipes. It has further been alleged that these items are used as mechanical seals for not getting the heat, liquid, etc. The Tribunal in the case of KCP Sugar and Industries Ltd. (supra) held that Asbestos Graphite Packing used for preventing leakage in pipes connected with flanges to transfer cane juice from one station to another in processing plant in sugar mill are eligible for Cenvat credit. Therefore, I do not find any reason for denial of credit on these items also. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. Order dictated & pronounced in open court on 26.11.2007.
-
2007 (11) TMI 648 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gs were also initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ). In the penalty proceedings both the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for short the CIT(A) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) were of the view that no information was withheld by the Assessee nor did the Assessee conceal any income or furnish inaccurate particulars so as to warrant the invoking of penalty proceedings. It was held by the Tribunal that at best it was an inaccurate computation of taxable income under the provisions of the Act and an application of wrong law by the Assessee. In view of the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) as well as of the Tribunal, we do not think that any substantial question of law arises for our consideration. It does appear that the Assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars nor did the Assessee conceal its income but merely applied the inaccurate legal position in its return. Dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 647 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pak Aggarwal. In this case also, the panchnama dated 23.12.2000 was issued only for the purpose of revoking the prohibitory order passed earlier and there was no seizure of any asset under the panchnama as can be seen from the copy of the panchnama filed at pages 33 to 36 of the paper book. In this situation, following our reasons given in the case of Deepak Aggarwal, we hold that the block assessment framed on 27.12.2002 is beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 158BE (1)(b) of the Act. The assessee's appeal is thus allowed. In view of this decision, there is no need to examine the other grounds raised in the assessee's appeal The appeal of the department becomes infructuous and dismissed as such. 5. In the result, IT(SS)A.No.1/Del/2004 and IT(SS)A.No.204/Del/2004 filed by the respective assessees are allowed and IT(SS)A.No.221/Del/2004 filed by the department is dismissed. No costs. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of November 2007.
-
2007 (11) TMI 646 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elying upon this judgment. 4. Learned senior counsel for the respondents states that he does not dispute the fact that the decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) does not fully cover the point in dispute involved in the present case and the facts of the two cases are different. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for re-decision in accordance with law. All questions are kept open. Anything stated in this order be not taken as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. 6. The appeals are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. C.A.No.1287 of 2005 7. Counsel for the parties agree that in view of the order passed in C.A.Nos.8457-8459 of 2001, the order of the Tribunal in the present case, deserves to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 8. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 645 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ource of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retro fitment and other related matters for such conversion kits Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose." 12. A reading of these two sections makes it clear that Section 52 does not prohibit either the importation of the LPG conversion kits or prohibit the change in the source of energy from petrol to compressed natural gas or liquid petroleum gas. 13. In view of above, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 644 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was not in the record seen by the CIT(A). Considering this fact coupled with the fact that the case of the Revenue never was, prior to its application under s. 254(2) of the Act, that the notice has been served on the assessee through a process server, we are of the view that no error can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. We may also mention that in CIT vs. Vardhman Estate (P) Ltd. (2007) 208 CTR (Del) 251 (2006) 287 ITR 368(Del), a similar contention was sought to be urged on behalf of the Revenue. When it was put to learned senior standing counsel of the Revenue whether there existed any provision of law which required the Tribunal to call for the assessment records and peruse it themselves, the answer was in the negative. As far as the present case is concerned, in light of what has been discussed, we hold that the Tribunal committed no error in proceeding on the basis of the record which was available before it. 7. No substantial question of law arises.
-
2007 (11) TMI 643 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ons of Tribunal and also he has followed the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It is also to be noted that if the very same capital goods/inputs are exported by the respondent themselves, the respondents would be eligible for availement of rebate of duty paid on such inputs. If that be so, the findings of both the lower authorities are correct. Further it is noticed that identical issue was before the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Synthetic Machinery Mnfrs. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Coimbatore as reported at 2005 (184) E.L.T. 109 (Tri.Chennai) wherein the Tribunal held as under "Cenvat/Modvat-Inputs supplied without payment of duty to 100 EOU in terms of CT-3 certificate-Credit of duty paid on such inputs not to be denied-Rule 3 and 44 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004". 3. As such, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and needs to be upheld. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected and impugned order is upheld.
-
2007 (11) TMI 642 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... dy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 641 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... thin the Customs area. For example, they are unloading the goods from the ship to the barge and from the barge, they are taken to the wharf, and from the wharf, they are unloaded, from the wharf after customs clearance, they are taken to the godowns and in the godowns after packing the material, they are transported. For the various expenses incurred by them which are reimbursable, they are receiving certain amounts, which are incurred on behalf of the principal. Their income is actually only Agency Commission on which they had been paying Service Tax regularly. They had also been filing the ST-3 returns regularly. Prima facie, the appellants have a strong case on merits. They have also pleaded financial hardship. Hence, we are inclined to grant full waiver of the Service Tax demanded along with interest and penalties till the disposal of the case. As huge amount is involved, the case is posted for final hearing on 24th January, 2008. (Pronounced in open Court on 15-11-2007)
-
2007 (11) TMI 640 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of learned counsel that the Society must act in terms of Bye-Laws as has been observed by this Court in A. Jithendernath vs. Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society and another (2006) 10 SCC 96 para 54 is undoubtedly correct but the same would not mean that invalid bye-law shall be permitted to operate and that too in derogation to the legislative act. 14. Section 27 of the 1960 Act is absolutely clear and unambiguous. It does not admit of two meanings. If the literal rule of interpretation is to be applied and there is no reason as to why it should not be, all members of the family who have been admitted to the membership of the Society would be entitled to vote. The byelaw, it would bear repetition to state, cannot prevail over the statutory provision. 15. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
-
2007 (11) TMI 639 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cers to call upon the assessee to prove the existence of such credits and to confirm whether the credit shown in the entries are really in existence or not. When the Assessing officer has found that such entries are incorrect, when an opportunity was given to the assessee to prove such entries, when the assessee has failed to prove the same inspite of giving an opportunity for the Assessing officer, we are of the opinion that all authorities were justified in holding that the amount of ₹ 13,03,008/- as an unproved credit. In the circumstances, we have to answer the question No. 3 against the assessee. 11. In the result, we allow the appeal-in-part directing the Assessing officer to delete the addition of ₹ 22 lakhs and ₹ 4,40,653/- respectively, granting liberty for the Assessing officer to examine whether ₹ 4,40,653/- has been shown by the assessee for the subsequent assessment year. No confirm the addition of ₹ 13,03,008/- as unproved credits.
-
2007 (11) TMI 638 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ause 115 of Sec. 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as of tour operator. ‘Tour operator’ is defined as ‘any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or Rules made thereunder’. It is submitted that the appellant does not organize tours as envisaged in the case of a tour operator and that he does not transport passengers in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or Rules made thereunder. 2. I find that the lower authorities have not entered a finding in their respective orders that the appellants operate tourist vehicles covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The ld. SDR does not contradict this submission. In the circumstances, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the service tax demanded till final disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 637 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... red to pay tax on the amount of ₹ 12,50,000 to show its good intentions and bona fides. Of course this was without prejudice to the rights and contention of the assessee that the shareholders were genuine persons. Unfortunately this aspect of the case was not at all looked into by the AO. o p /o p Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the matter be remanded back to the file of the AO to look into the issue afresh but we do not think that this will serve any purpose. The CIT(A) had given 2 years to the AO to respond to the submissions made by the assessee but the AO did not find it necessary to do so. Remanding back the matter to the file of AO would not only delay further proceedings but would also cause further harassment to the assessee. The Revenue had an opportunity to justify its stand but it failed to avail of that occasion. There is no reason why it should be given a second chance. In our opinion no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. o p /o p
-
2007 (11) TMI 636 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... erms of clause (c) of Rule 57AC the Central Excise Rules. The judgment dated May 10, 2007 is clarified to the aforementioned extent. I.A. stands disposed of.
-
2007 (11) TMI 635 - SC ORDER
The authorities may make the assessment but no coercive steps will be taken to recover the tax from the Respondents - application allowed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 634 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ourned at the request of appellant. 2. When the matter come up for ascertaining compliance, Shri Amrish Neema, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they have filed a writ petition before Hon ble High Court of Gujarat. However, neither a copy of the writ petition has been placed on record nor learned advocate is able to tell us as to when the writ petition was filed and what is the status thereafter. However, he admitted that no stay of operation of the said order has been granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. We further note that the amount of pre-deposit was reduced at the request of the appellant and as such, there is no justification for the appellant for not depositing the amount in question. 3. We, accordingly, dismiss all the appeals for non-compliance under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, read with the stay order and miscellaneous application referred application referred supra. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 633 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nts exhibit a desire to transport the goods from Mumbai to Chennai. The errors and mistake on the documents and circumstances leading thereto have been explained in great detail by the personnel of M/s. Delux Roadlines, the transport Company vide Para 16 of impugned order. These clarifications have been summarily brushed aside by the ld. Commissioner without giving any reasons. The reasons given are plausible and justified. No arguments were advanced on this aspect by the ld. JDR before me. 19. After considering the material on record, I find no reason to disagree with the Order recorded by the ld. Member (Judicial). The reference is answered accordingly. 20. Order accordingly. (Pronounced in Court on 24-8-2007) Sd/- (T. Anjaneyulu) Member (Judicial) 24-8-2007 MAJORITY ORDER 21. In view of the majority order, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Sd/- (Chittaranjan Satapathy) Member (Technical) 20-11-2007 Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) 7-9-2007
........
|
