Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (8) 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 61 to 80 of 787 Records

• 2007 (8) TMI 772
  
  Issues involved: Determination of whether the sale of an industrial shed resulted in a short-term capital gain or a long-term capital gain for the assessment year 2001-02.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Delhi heard an appeal by the revenue against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of the sale of an industrial shed by the assessee. The assessee had been issued an allotment letter for the shed in 1994, made payments over time, and was put in possession in 1998 before selling it in 2000. The Assessing Officer considered it a short-term capital gain due to the holding period, which was less than 36 months. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating the assessee was entitled to the asset from the date of allotment. The High Court noted that even if the Tribunal's view was incorrect, it would only apply to this specific case and not set a general precedent, thus not raising a substantial question of law. Additionally, the tax effect was minimal, falling below the limit set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 771
  
  Issues:
  Claim for mandamus for release of goods pending clearance and direction for re-testing of samples.
  
  Analysis:
  In this case, the petitioner sought a mandamus for the release of goods pending clearance at Tughlakabad or, alternatively, a direction for the Customs Authorities to conduct fresh testing of the product samples. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the court in Magma (India) v. Union of India, which allowed for re-testing of samples if the authorities suspected adulteration or non-conformance to specifications. The respondent did not contest the permissibility of re-testing but referred to a different Division Bench order that declined to direct second testing without commenting on the Magma (India) judgment.
  
  The court affirmed the validity of the Magma (India) judgment, noting that it had not been overruled or questioned by a Larger Bench. Additionally, the court highlighted the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which allow for second testing of samples, especially benefiting the purchaser. The court also emphasized its authority under Article 226 to direct second testing.
  
  Consequently, the court partially allowed the petition, directing the respondents to send samples to a Central Food Laboratory without informing the petitioner. The respondents were instructed to act upon the laboratory reports within four weeks. The writ petition and application for interim relief were partly allowed as per the specified terms.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 770
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of remand passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Mumbai. No costs were awarded. (2007 (8) TMI 770 - SC)

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 769
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Contravention of provisions u/s 10(6) read with Sections 10(5) and 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
  2. Rejection of applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounts.
  3. Evaluation of undue hardship and safeguarding the interest of revenue.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Contravention of Provisions u/s 10(6) read with Sections 10(5) and 42(1) of the Act
  The petitioners, companies engaged in export business, purchased foreign exchange under LERMS but surrendered it through authorized money changers due to unplanned foreign trips. They received summons for alleged contravention of the Act and penalties were imposed by the second respondent. The petitioners contended there was no contravention as they did not misuse the foreign exchange and had surrendered it within the specified period.
  
  Issue 2: Rejection of Applications for Waiver of Pre-Deposit
  The third respondent rejected the petitioners' applications for waiver of pre-deposit, citing no prima facie case and sound financial condition of the companies. The petitioners argued that the penalties were excessive given the technical nature of the contravention and their financial hardship.
  
  Issue 3: Evaluation of Undue Hardship and Safeguarding the Interest of Revenue
  The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Benara Valves Ltd. case, emphasizing the need to consider undue hardship and safeguard the interest of revenue. The third respondent's decision to reject the waiver applications was upheld as it was in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The court noted that the petitioners had not substantiated their claim of undue hardship.
  
  Conclusion:
  The matter was remitted to the third respondent for fresh consideration upon the petitioners making the pre-deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs respectively within two weeks. The third respondent was directed to dispose of the appeals on merits independently. The writ petitions were dismissed except for setting aside a portion of the third respondent's observation. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 768
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to pass interim orders u/s 17 of the Sarfaesi Act.
  2. Automatic stay of proceedings u/s 13(4) of the Sarfaesi Act upon filing an application u/s 17.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Jurisdiction of DRT to Pass Interim Orders u/s 17 of the Sarfaesi Act
  
  The court examined whether the DRT has the jurisdiction to pass interim orders in an application filed u/s 17 of the Sarfaesi Act. It was noted that the Supreme Court in the case of *Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India* upheld the validity of Section 17, except Sub-section (2) which was declared ultra vires. The court observed that Sub-section (7) to Section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act empowers the DRT to dispose of applications in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (RDDB & FI Act) and the Rules made thereunder. Sub-section (12) to Section 19 of the RDDB & FI Act allows the Tribunal to pass interim orders. Therefore, the DRT has jurisdiction to pass interim orders u/s 17 of the Sarfaesi Act.
  
  Issue 2: Automatic Stay of Proceedings u/s 13(4) upon Filing an Application u/s 17
  
  The court addressed whether all proceedings u/s 13(4) of the Sarfaesi Act automatically stay upon filing an application u/s 17. It was argued by the borrower that the proceedings should automatically stay, but the court found no specific provision in the Sarfaesi Act that supports this claim. The Supreme Court in *Mardia Chemicals* held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass stay/interim orders, but there is no automatic stay. The court concluded that there is no automatic stay or prohibition on the secured creditor to take recourse to measures u/s 13(4) until an interim order is passed by the Tribunal.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court held that the DRT has jurisdiction to pass interim orders u/s 17 of the Sarfaesi Act. It also concluded that there is no automatic stay of proceedings u/s 13(4) upon filing an application u/s 17. The borrower-company and guarantors may pursue their application pending before the DRT, and if the DRT declares the bank's action invalid, they may request restoration of possession of the assets. The auction sale of secured assets on 16th April 2007 should not be confirmed until the Tribunal decides the issue. Both the writ petition and the civil revision petition were disposed of with these observations, without deciding the claims on merits.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 767
  
  The High Court of Bombay admitted the appeal based on questions of law. The court found that the authority has discretion to interfere with penalties under Sections 76 and 80 of the Central Excise Act. As no arbitrariness was pointed out, the court dismissed the appeal as there was no case for interference.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 766
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the domestic inquiry and findings of guilt.
  2. Role and responsibility of the respondent in the alleged misconduct.
  3. Authority of the Division Bench to re-appreciate evidence in domestic inquiries.
  4. Abandonment of the plea of perversity by the respondent's counsel.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Legality of the domestic inquiry and findings of guilt:

  The respondent, while working as Deputy General Manager (POL-Marketing) in Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, was charge-sheeted for serious misconduct. The charges included dishonestly recommending the purchase of land, appointing a valuer without due process, and engaging a firm without tendering. A regular inquiry was initiated, and the Inquiry Officer found all charges proved. The disciplinary authority then reverted the respondent to a lower grade. The respondent challenged this in the Guwahati High Court, claiming the inquiry was perverse and illegal. The Division Bench set aside the disciplinary authority's order, leading to the present appeal.

  2. Role and responsibility of the respondent in the alleged misconduct:

  The charges against the respondent were based on his actions as part of various committees. The Supreme Court noted that the decisions were joint and involved multiple members, not just the respondent. The Court found that the respondent alone was unfairly targeted, while the decisions were collective. The Court emphasized that the respondent's preliminary report on land price was not binding and the final price was negotiated by the Price Negotiation Committee.

  3. Authority of the Division Bench to re-appreciate evidence in domestic inquiries:

  The Additional Solicitor General argued that the Division Bench acted as an appellate authority by re-appreciating evidence, which is not permissible. However, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench correctly assessed the situation, noting that the respondent was made a scapegoat for collective decisions. The Court stated that if the committee's decision was flawed, all members should be held accountable, not just the respondent.

  4. Abandonment of the plea of perversity by the respondent's counsel:

  The Additional Solicitor General contended that the respondent's counsel had abandoned the plea of perversity before the Single Judge, and it should not have been raised again before the Division Bench. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the writ appeal is a continuation of the original writ petition, and the Division Bench was right to consider the plea of perversity. The Court found that the approach of making the respondent solely responsible was indeed perverse.

  Conclusion:

  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Division Bench's decision to quash the disciplinary authority's order. The Court emphasized that the respondent was unfairly singled out for collective decisions, and the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not sustainable.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 765
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of the transaction as "sale" or "works contract."
  2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Rainbow Colour Lab case.
  3. Interpretation of the 46th Amendment and its impact on the classification of transactions.
  4. Correctness of the assessment and penalty imposed by the authorities.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of the Transaction as "Sale" or "Works Contract":
  The petitioner, engaged in processing and printing films, was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, who classified the transaction as an outright sale, thus levying sales tax and penalty. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal but was challenged by the petitioner. The Special Tribunal confirmed the tax liability but deleted the penalty. The petitioner argued that the transaction should be classified as a "works contract," not a sale, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rainbow Colour Lab.
  
  2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in Rainbow Colour Lab Case:
  The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rainbow Colour Lab, which held that the work done by photographers was a service contract, not involving a sale of goods. The petitioner argued that this precedent should apply to their case, as their transaction was similar. However, the respondent contended that the Supreme Court's decision in the Associated Cement Companies case suggested that the Rainbow Colour Lab decision was contrary to the express provisions of Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution.
  
  3. Interpretation of the 46th Amendment and its Impact on the Classification of Transactions:
  The judgment emphasized the impact of the 46th Amendment, which allowed states to bifurcate works contracts into two separate contracts: one for the sale of goods involved in the works contract and the other for the supply of labor and services. The court noted that the dominant intention test applied before the amendment was no longer applicable. The judgment in Associated Cement Companies clarified that even if the dominant intention of the contract was service, the state could levy sales tax on the material used in the contract.
  
  4. Correctness of the Assessment and Penalty Imposed by the Authorities:
  The court reviewed the factual findings of the lower authorities, which had consistently treated the transaction as an outright sale. However, the court found that the authorities erred in not considering the transaction as a composite one involving both sale and service. The court directed that the transaction should be assessed under Section 3-B of the T.N.G.S.T. Act, which pertains to the levy of tax on the transfer of goods involved in works contracts.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the authorities had incorrectly classified the transaction as an outright sale. The correct classification should be a "works contract," and the assessment should be made under Section 3-B of the T.N.G.S.T. Act. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with a direction to reassess the transaction under the appropriate section, and the penalty imposed was set aside.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 764
  
  Issues involved:
  The issue involves the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a Special Value Branch (SVB) deposit made with the Customs authorities.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deduction under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961
  The assessee claimed a deduction under section 43B for a SVB deposit made with the Customs authorities. The contention was that the payment was required to be made on demand to the Customs authorities pending final determination of the actual duty. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, directing the Assessing Officer to permit the deduction. The Tribunal upheld this view, considering that the assessee had no option but to make the payment as per the demand notice issued by the Customs authorities. The Tribunal also directed verification of any excess payment and to tax the amount if not already done, limiting the liability to the relevant assessment year.
  
  Issue 2: Nature of the deposit
  The revenue contended that the amount deposited was not customs duty. However, this argument was not raised before the Tribunal, and hence was not considered by the Court.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no fault in the Tribunal's decision as the payment fell within the purview of section 43B of the Act, and no substantial question of law was found to arise for consideration.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 763
  
  Issues:
  1. Revision of assessment order under Section 20(4) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
  2. Denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
  3. Interpretation of "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in the context of rules of natural justice.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The petition challenged the order revising the assessment for the year 2002-03 under Section 20(4) of the State Act, enhancing the tax liability of the petitioner. The assessment was revised by respondent No. 1 without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, leading to a dispute regarding the correctness of the assessment based on Rule 6(3)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.
  
  2. The petitioner contended that the denial of personal hearing violated the rules of natural justice. Despite the petitioner's request for a personal hearing in response to the show cause notice, respondent No. 1 proceeded to revise the assessment without granting the requested opportunity. The Court found that the order was liable to be set aside solely due to the denial of the opportunity of personal hearing, as requested by the petitioner.
  
  3. The Court referred to relevant provisions such as Section 20(1) and (4) of the Act and Rule 31(1) and (6) of the Rules, emphasizing that an order enhancing assessment cannot be passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to show cause against the proposed enhancement and a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court interpreted "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in light of the principles of natural justice, highlighting the importance of allowing the petitioner's representative to present their case effectively, especially in matters involving significant tax liabilities.
  
  In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner's representative with an opportunity of personal hearing. The judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and granting a fair chance for the assessee to present their case effectively in assessment proceedings.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 762
  
  Issues involved: Dispute over Annual Letting Value calculation for property rental income u/s 23 of Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Delhi disposed of three appeals by the Revenue concerning the calculation of Annual Letting Value for property rental income. The Assessee had declared rental income from a building but omitted to declare rent for the basement. The Assessing Officer computed the Annual Letting Value based on the rent declared for the First Floor. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed to accept the Annual Letting Value as declared by the Assessee. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating that there was no evidence to show the declared rent was inaccurate. The Revenue contended that the property was not self-occupied by the Assessee and the Annual Letting Value should be determined differently. The Assessee argued that the actual rent received should be considered as per section 23 of the Act.
  
  The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence contradicting the Assessee's declared rent. As the Assessee followed the law by using actual rent received to compute income, the Tribunal's decision was upheld. The High Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law to challenge the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, all appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 761
  
  Issues involved:
  1. Whether there was a shortage of input and duty amount leviable?
  2. Whether CENVAT Credit was allowable without Basic Excise Duty paid?
  3. Whether the cess amount paid was leviable or not?
  
  Issue 1:
  The Appellant argued that the alleged discrepancy in input was compensated as the goods were used in manufacturing after being accounted for. They requested leniency due to their cooperation in depositing duty and penalty. The Appellate Order acknowledged the shortage but granted exoneration from penalty while confirming duty demand.
  
  Issue 2:
  The Appellant, being new to the input, claimed ignorance regarding CENVAT Credit eligibility for CVD paid. The learned Consultant admitted the cess was payable and paid by the Appellant.
  
  Issue 3:
  The Revenue contended that the shortage of goods was admitted by the Appellant and the search process was not flawed. They supported the legality of CENVAT Credit and cess payment. The Appellate Order upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty significantly, considering the Appellant's cooperation and lack of malicious intent.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was allowed partly, with a token penalty imposed. The duty demand was confirmed, while the Appellant was granted exoneration from a higher penalty amount. The CENVAT Credit and cess payments were deemed legally payable.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 760
  
  The Calcutta High Court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the court agreed with the opinion of the Tribunal and found no substantial question of law involved. The citation is 2007 (8) TMI 760.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 759
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding unexplained deposits in bank account, tax levied, acceptance of explanation by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), tax effect less than Rs. 1 lac, jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain appeal, Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961.
  
  In the present case, the Revenue appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to unexplained deposits in the Assessee's bank account during the block period from 1st April, 1990 to 14th February, 2001. The Assessing Officer had levied tax on these deposits as they were not adequately explained. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the Assessee's explanation, stating that expecting the Assessee to recall every bank entry was unreasonable. The disputed amounts were Rs. 30,000 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs. 83,000 for the assessment year 2001-2002, with an additional accepted gift of Rs. 60,000 for 1999-2000.
  
  Subsequently, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which declined to entertain the appeal citing CBDT instructions that discourage appeals for tax effects less than Rs. 1 lac. The Revenue then approached the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the Tribunal should have examined the matter on its merits as a fact-finding authority. However, the High Court opined that the Revenue's contention lacked substance due to the insignificant amount in question, especially in the context of a block assessment. The Court highlighted the unnecessary burden on the Tribunal, Courts, and the Assessee caused by pursuing such cases, leading to avoidable expenses for the Assessee in legal fees. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that no substantial legal question arose and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 758
  
  Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal against Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on proof of service of the order.
  
  Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
  
  The appellant filed a Misc. application for condonation of delay of nearly 8 years in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that they did not receive the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.2.1999 and made several attempts to obtain a copy. Only after issuing a legal notice, they received the copy on 13.3.2007 and promptly filed the appeal on 14.3.2007. The appellant relied on case laws emphasizing the need for proof of service of the order to condone the delay. The appellant's consultant argued that there was no delay as the appeal was filed immediately upon receipt of the order. However, the Revenue contended that there was evidence of the order being sent to the appellant via registered post on 26.2.1999. The Revenue cited case laws where proof of service by registered post was considered sufficient, leading to the presumption of service unless proven otherwise. The appellant pointed out that the order should have been sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, which was not evident from the records. The Tribunal noted the proof of dispatch of the order by registered post on 26.2.1999 and concluded that there was sufficient evidence of service, leading to the dismissal of the Misc. application for condonation of delay and the subsequent appeal as time-barred.
  
  Decision:
  
  The Tribunal dismissed the Misc. application for condonation of delay and consequently, the stay application and appeal were also dismissed as time-barred on 10.08.2007.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 757
  
  Issues involved: Application for waiving pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty imposed on M/s. Aluminium Powder Company Limited for availing service tax credit on maintenance of windmills for manufacturing excisable goods.
  
  Summary:
  1. The appellant, M/s. Aluminium Powder Company Limited, located in Melakottai, installed windmills in Tirunelveli and paid service tax under the category of 'repair and maintenance' on charges for maintaining the windmills. The lower authorities found that the generation of power and manufacturing of excisable goods were independent activities due to the distance between the windmills and the factory, concluding that service tax on maintenance could not be availed as input credit for excisable goods. A penalty was imposed on the appellant along with a demand for duty and cess.
  
  2. The appellant argued that the power generated by the windmills was used in manufacturing excisable goods, making the maintenance service an input service for production. The issue of whether service tax on windmill maintenance can be availed by the manufacturing unit is contentious and requires detailed examination. The appellant had already paid the demanded service tax and cess, with interest remaining unquantified. The Tribunal ordered a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of interest and penalty until the final disposal of the appeal.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 756
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding dropping of proceedings against respondent for availing modvat credit on input scrap procured from dealers under questionable circumstances.
  
  The Revenue alleged that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps as per Notification No. 466/86 before availing credit of duty on inputs wrongly mentioned in invoices of dealers who did not undertake actual transactions of the goods. Show cause notice proposed recovery of credit amount taken during a specific period.
  
  The respondent contended that they procured scrap from registered dealers with whom they had agreements for supply at contracted prices. They argued that necessary precautions were taken in selecting dealers, and they had submitted required documents to ensure genuineness of goods. Cited Tribunal decisions to support their position that action should be taken against dealers for irregularities, not against purchasers.
  
  The department argued that the goods were not manufactured by the supposed manufacturer, questioning the legitimacy of passing on modvat credit based on spurious invoices. They highlighted discrepancies in electricity consumption, lack of transport and weighing slips, and suspicious pricing of goods sold to respondent by dealers. Emphasized the need for the respondent to ensure duty payment on inputs for claiming cenvat credit.
  
  Both lower authorities confirmed receipt and consumption of goods by respondent for manufacturing final products. Found that respondent had taken adequate steps to verify goods' authenticity, including procuring from registered dealers and providing sample invoices showing duty payment. Disputed claims of fraudulent transactions based on payment methods and pricing.
  
  Tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting respondent's entitlement to credit based on documents from registered dealers. Noted that a previous decision in respondent's favor was binding and required to be followed.
  
  The appeal was dismissed based on the findings that there was no substance in the Revenue's challenge, and the decision was pronounced in open court.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 755
  
  The Supreme Court ordered a batch of appeals to be heard by a Larger Bench due to conflicting opinions on whether printing on a package is incidental or primary. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. (Case Citation: 2007 (8) TMI 755 - SC)

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 754
  
  Issues involved: Determination of tax liability u/s 76, 77, and 78 based on the nature of services provided by the appellant under a contract with the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
  
  Summary:
  The appellant was required to pre-deposit a specific amount and faced penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 for a contract involving the supply of hardware materials and software to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The dispute arose when the department sought to categorize the appellant's activity as "Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Service" instead of "Maintenance and Repair Services." The appellant argued that their software did not have the capability for online data retrieval or access, supported by technical evidence. The Revenue's failure to present expert opinions led to the conclusion that the appellant had a strong prima facie case. The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed recovery pending the appeal's final disposal, emphasizing the need for technical scrutiny and directing the Commissioner to provide detailed comments and technical responses before the final hearing on 22nd November 2007.

  ---

• 2007 (8) TMI 753
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of law, judicial propriety, consistency in approach of the Tribunal.
  
  Interpretation of law: The High Court considered an appeal where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had ignored the law laid down by the Bombay High Court in favor of decisions rendered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on maintaining consistency in approach with co-ordinate Benches without discussing the Bombay High Court's decision.
  
  Judicial propriety: The High Court found the Tribunal's approach erroneous as it failed to consider or distinguish the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Court emphasized that when there is a judgment of a superior court, it should be considered by the Tribunal with clear reasons provided for its applicability or inapplicability.
  
  Consistency in approach of the Tribunal: The High Court noted that while the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal had considered the decision in question, the reasons for their conclusions were not clear. The Court directed that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration on merits, emphasizing the need for clear reasoning in decision-making.
  
  Conclusion: The High Court answered the substantial question of law in the negative, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for fresh disposal on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal for further directions.

  ---

12345678........ 40