|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 862 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 1031
Issues involved: Denial of MODVAT credit on calcium carbide; Non-receipt of input in the factory; Admissibility of MODVAT credit based on invoices.
Summary:
1. The appellants did not appear for the hearing despite notice being duly issued to their address. The notice was redirected to a different address, and as no change of address was communicated, it was concluded that the appellants were not interested in pursuing their appeal. The appeal was taken up for final disposal.
2. The appeal pertained to the denial of MODVAT credit amounting to Rs. 4,47,000 on calcium carbide for November 1999. The appellants claimed credit based on 15 invoices issued by M/s BOC India Ltd, but subsequent investigations revealed that the input was not received in their factory. Statements from the General Manager of the appellants and the Assistant Accountant of M/s. BOC India Ltd confirmed the non-receipt of the input. As per Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, the credit could not be claimed unless the input was received in the factory, which was not the case here. Consequently, the MODVAT credit was deemed inadmissible, and the appeal was dismissed.
3. The impugned order denying the MODVAT credit was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1030
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of action u/s 158BD.
2. Adequacy of opportunity and principles of natural justice.
3. Ownership of cash Rs. 22,35,000.
4. Determination of undisclosed income.
5. Seizure of Rs. 2,15,000 from Smt. Jayaben Govindbhai Patel.
6. Credit for retained cash and accrued interest.
7. Charging of interest u/s 158BFA.
8. Charging of surcharge on computed tax.
Summary:
1. Validity of action u/s 158BD:
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment passed u/s 158BD of the IT Act, 1961. The AO initiated proceedings based on information received from Dy. CIT, Circle 10 and 11, Ahmedabad, regarding cash seized by police and subsequently by the IT Department. The AO concluded that the cash belonged to the assessee and initiated action u/s 158BD to examine the sources of the cash.
2. Adequacy of opportunity and principles of natural justice:
The assessee contended that the assessment order was passed without adequate opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) held that adequate opportunity was given, and the evidences furnished during assessment and appellate proceedings were considered.
3. Ownership of cash Rs. 22,35,000:
The assessee claimed the cash belonged to various concerns of Labh Group and was handed over to Shri Harin K. Shah for safe custody. The AO, after examining the books of account, found discrepancies and concluded that the cash was the undisclosed income of the assessee.
4. Determination of undisclosed income:
The AO determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 22,35,000, despite the cash seized being Rs. 19,13,000. The CIT(A) confirmed this determination.
5. Seizure of Rs. 2,15,000 from Smt. Jayaben Govindbhai Patel:
The AO included Rs. 2,15,000 seized from Smt. Jayaben Govindbhai Patel as the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) upheld this inclusion, even though no such finding was given in her assessment u/s 158BC.
6. Credit for retained cash and accrued interest:
The AO did not grant credit for the retained cash of Rs. 19,13,000 and accrued interest while issuing the demand notice on the block assessment. The CIT(A) confirmed this action.
7. Charging of interest u/s 158BFA:
The AO charged interest amounting to Rs. 19,276 u/s 158BFA. The CIT(A) upheld this charge.
8. Charging of surcharge on computed tax:
The AO charged a surcharge of Rs. 2,01,150 on the computed tax, despite the relevant block period not requiring surcharge as per s. 113 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) confirmed this charge.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order framed u/s 158BD, holding it null and void due to the notice u/s 143(2) being served beyond the prescribed period of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements, including Smt. Bandana Gogoi vs. CIT and Kuber Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, which supported the requirement of timely notice u/s 143(2). The Tribunal also rejected the Departmental Representative's contention regarding the retrospective application of s. 292BB, citing the Delhi Special Bench's decision in Kuber Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed without deciding the appeal on merits.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1029
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance of commission paid to Managing Director and Executives by the Assessing Officer. The decision was based on a previous order in Income Tax Reference Nos. 80 to 82 of 1982. The appeal was dismissed in line with the previous court order.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1028
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 22(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the question of whether a dealer can be held liable for tax and penalty due to the fault of the department in not issuing notifications regarding the cancellation of a registration certificate.
Summary:
Issue 1: Application under Section 22(2) of the Act for reference of a question of law to the court
The petitioner-dealer filed an application under Section 22(2) of the Act seeking a direction to the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer a question of law to the court for adjudication. The court directed the Tribunal to refer the question regarding the liability of the dealer for tax and penalty due to the department's failure to issue cancellation notifications.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Act and relevant case laws
The petitioner argued that sales made to dealers before the publication of cancellation orders in the official gazette should qualify for exemption under Section 5(2)(a)(iii) as the dealer could not have knowledge of the cancellation. The petitioner relied on Rule 12(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules and case laws like Arjan Radio House case and a Delhi High Court judgment in support of their argument.
Issue 3: Imputation of knowledge and the requirement of gazette publication
The State Counsel contended that once an order cancelling a dealer's certificate is passed, knowledge should be imputed to all parties involved. However, the court held that without publication in the official gazette, knowledge cannot be imputed to the selling dealer. The court emphasized the importance of gazette notification for imparting knowledge to the public.
Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the dealer-assessee, stating that sales made before the publication of cancellation orders in the official gazette should be considered bona fide and qualify for exemption as per Section 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. The court relied on previous judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the necessity of gazette notification for imputing knowledge. Therefore, the question of law was decided against the revenue and in favor of the dealer-assessee.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1027
The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue as an undated review order was filed without a proper date and signature, making it not maintainable for appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1026
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues concerning the levy and imposition of entertainment tax on Direct to Home (DTH) service providers under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (1979 Act) and the constitutional validity of such levy.
Levy and Imposition of Entertainment Tax:
The writ petitioners, DTH service providers, argued that the nature of their service, utilizing satellite systems to transmit programs directly to subscribers, distinguished them from cable operators. They contended that DTH service falls under the control of the Central Government and is subject to service tax. The learned Single Judge considered two main challenges raised by the petitioners. Firstly, whether the 1979 Act authorized the imposition of entertainment tax on DTH service providers. Secondly, whether the State Legislature had the power to legislate on entertainment tax despite service tax being levied under a Union List legislation. The Single Judge found that the 1979 Act did not provide for the imposition of entertainment tax on DTH service providers, a view upheld by the High Court.
Constitutional Validity of Tax Levy:
The High Court affirmed that the State Legislature's power to levy entertainment tax under Entry 62 of the State List and the Union Parliament's authority to impose service tax under Entry 92 (c) of the Union List operate in distinct fields. The Court held that both legislatures were competent to legislate in their respective domains. Despite this, the Court deemed the challenge to the imposition of entertainment tax on DTH service providers as academic, given the absence of legal authorization for such levy at the relevant time. Consequently, the Special Appeals filed by the writ petitioners were deemed non-maintainable and dismissed.
Amendment Act Challenge:
Following the enactment of the 2009 Amendment Act, which introduced provisions related to DTH broadcasting services under the 1979 Act, the writ petitioners expressed intent to challenge this amendment. The High Court granted them liberty to challenge the Amendment Act, emphasizing that such a challenge would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the law, without interference from the judgments under review.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1025
The Supreme Court of India in 2009 (3) TMI 1025 - SC order, with judges S. H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, dismissed the case after condoning the delay. The case was referenced by the High Court, Madras in 2007 (6) TMI 25. Petitioner represented by Shweta Garg, T. V. Ratnam, Vismai Rao, Ashish Gopal Garg, B. V. Balaram Das, and respondent by Radha Rangaswamy.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1024
Issues involved: Interpretation of Sec.144 and Section 44AD, reduction of estimated profit/income, declaration of closing balance, correctness of Tribunal's order.
Interpretation of Sec.144 and Section 44AD:
The High Court examined the issue of interpreting Sec.144 and Section 44AD in a case where the assessing officer had estimated the profit/income of the assessee at 30% of gross receipts. The Tribunal, however, reduced this estimate to 6% of the gross receipts. The Court noted that the proviso to section 44-AD, which assesses estimated profit as 8% of gross receipts for Civil Contractors earning less than Rs. 40 lakhs, was not applicable in this case due to the higher turnover. The ITAT justified its decision by considering a fixed rate of 2% of gross receipts as the tax deductible at source for all contractors, big or small. Based on this reasoning, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to estimate the income at 6% of gross receipts, considering the tax liability at 1.8% for individuals and 2.1% for firms or companies. Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal's order logical and non-arbitrary, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Declaration of Closing Balance:
Another issue raised was whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee had not declared a closing balance of Rs. 39,87,021 in the books of account. The assessing officer had estimated income at 30% of gross receipts to account for this balance. The Court, however, did not find this omission to be a sufficient ground to challenge the Tribunal's decision. It emphasized that the ITAT's reasoning for estimating income at 6% of gross receipts was based on logical and non-arbitrary grounds, and thus, the appeal was summarily dismissed.
Correctness of Tribunal's Order:
Lastly, the Court considered whether the Tribunal's order was based on the facts on record. Upon reviewing the case, the Court found that the ITAT had provided cogent and logical reasons for estimating the profit of the assessee at 6% of the gross receipts. It noted that the Tribunal's decision was not illogical, unreasoned, or arbitrary. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere in the matter, concluding that the questions of law did not arise, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1023
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of clauses 9 and 10 of the Trust Deed.
2. Validity of the proceedings under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act.
3. Maintainability of civil revision petitions and appeals.
4. Jurisdictional errors and principles of res judicata.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Clauses 9 and 10 of the Trust Deed:
The primary dispute revolves around the interpretation of the terms "Remaining Sons' Fund" and "Remaining Daughters' Fund" as expressed in the Trust Deed. The appellants sought a direction to the trustees to execute the Trust Deed by giving the correct interpretation to clauses 9 to 11. The learned Judge found that the Settlor intended that even the children of a pre-deceased remaining son or daughter are entitled to a share in the unit allocated to the remaining son or daughter who died issueless. The High Court, however, applied a literal interpretation, holding that the intention of the settlor was not to allow the property to percolate to other successors except those specified.
2. Validity of the Proceedings under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act:
The appellants filed original petitions under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, seeking directions for the correct execution of the Trust Deed. The High Court held that the original petitions were not maintainable under Sections 56 and 61 of the Trusts Act and should have been filed under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code before the appropriate courts. The High Court opined that the trial court's decision on the preliminary issue in the suits was not questionable on the point of jurisdiction, but the original petitions were invalid for want of jurisdiction.
3. Maintainability of Civil Revision Petitions and Appeals:
The High Court held that the civil revision petitions filed against the order dated 21.07.1999 were not maintainable. The findings rendered in the order dated 21.07.1999 did not amount to a decree, and no appeal lay against a mere finding. The matter would have been different if a decree was formally recorded pursuant to the decision rendered. The High Court should not have entered into the merit of the matter once it found that the civil revision applications were not maintainable.
4. Jurisdictional Errors and Principles of Res Judicata:
The appellants argued that the High Court could not have entered into the merits of the matter as no appeal or civil revision application was filed against the common order passed in the original suits, and thus, the civil revision applications were barred by the principles of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court noted that an appeal from a final decree is maintainable and that the principle of res judicata would not apply as an appeal from the final decree could still be maintained. The Supreme Court also discussed the scope of jurisdictional errors, noting that taking into consideration any irrelevant fact or non-consideration of a relevant fact would involve jurisdictional issues.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should reconsider the matter afresh together with the pending appeal and miscellaneous applications. The special leave petitions filed against the order dated 21.07.1999 were to be returned to the petitioners to re-file the same before the High Court. The Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. No costs were awarded.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1022
Issues involved: Challenge to Tribunal's order u/s 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding seized documents and cross-examination opportunity.
Seized Documents Issue:
The Tribunal found that the dealer-assessees were not able to participate meaningfully in the proceedings due to the non-release of seized documents. The High Court noted that lack of opportunity in returning the seized documents and the failure to permit cross-examination of witnesses may have prejudiced the dealer-assessees. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the case to the Original Authority for a fresh order, emphasizing the importance of adopting a fair procedure and returning the un-relied documents as per relevant circulars.
Cross-Examination Opportunity Issue:
The Tribunal also highlighted that the dealer-assessees were not allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the proceedings. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Tribunal correctly remanded the case for a fresh order to be passed by the Original Authority. The Court emphasized the necessity of following fair procedures and returning un-relied documents in accordance with circulars, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1021
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment allowing writ petitions for payment of statutory interest u/s 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Details of the Judgment:
1. The appeals challenged a Delhi High Court judgment allowing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for payment of statutory interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court directed the appellant to pay interest to claimants as per Section 34 of the Act and costs of Rs. 10,000.
2. The appellant contended that the High Court's direction contradicted a Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court. The respondents supported the judgment, citing public accountability highlighted by the High Court.
3. The Land Acquisition Act provides detailed procedures for land acquisition and compensation payment, including interest rates u/s 34. Section 28 also addresses interest awards by the Court on excess compensation.
4. The Supreme Court noted that Sections 28 and 34 are the only provisions dealing with interest payment to landowners. Previous judgments emphasized that courts cannot award interest beyond statutory rates prescribed by the Act.
5. The Court reiterated that the Act is a complete code governing interest payment, excluding equitable considerations. Courts have no authority to award interest beyond what is specified in Sections 28 and 34.
6. The Court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution, directions for interest payment must align with the provisions of Section 28 or 34. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court judgments were set aside.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1020
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2009 (3) TMI 1020. Judges were S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1019
Issues:
Assessable value determination based on job work basis for metal containers falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of the assessable value of metal containers manufactured on a job work basis using raw materials supplied by another party. The appellants manufactured metal containers for a company on a job work basis, where the raw materials were supplied by the company, and the appellants only received job charges. The issue revolved around the assessable value of these metal containers, which was determined during a specific period based on the cost in accordance with the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.
The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise directed the appellants to add a profit margin of 26.04% to the assessable value, based on the profit margin shown in the balance sheet of the appellants for a particular year. However, the Tribunal set aside this decision, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ujagar Prints. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessable value should be based on the cost of raw materials, manufacturing cost, and manufacturing profit of the job worker. Since the job charges paid by the company already included the profit margin of the appellants, no additional profit needed to be added to the assessable value.
The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision to add a 26.04% profit margin, but this decision was overturned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that the actual addition of the profit margin as reflected in the profit and loss account was not necessary for the assessment purpose. The Tribunal concluded that the assessable value declared by the appellants was acceptable, making the issue of incorrect computation of the assessable value by the Deputy Commissioner irrelevant.
In light of the above findings, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the job charges paid by the company already included the profit margin of the appellants, as per the settled law and relevant precedents.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1018
Issues:
1. Admissibility of one-time Cenvat credit under Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for inputs received by the assessee.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9A in relation to the stock declaration date.
3. Clarification provided by the Board through Circular dated 30-4-2003.
4. Applicability of deemed credit to goods received from a trader.
Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the setting aside of an adjudication order in a case involving the admissibility of one-time Cenvat credit under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Revenue contended that the respondents availed irregular deemed credit in violation of Rule 9A, inserted under Notification No. 25/2003, for processed/dyed fabrics. The main issue was whether the respondents were eligible for deemed credit on the stock declared as of 1-4-2003 or 31-3-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit on the stock declared as of 1-4-2003, leading to the appeal by the Revenue.
The Advocate for the respondents reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings and cited a Board Circular clarifying that stocks of inputs as of 1-4-2003 would be eligible for deemed credit under Rule 9A. After reviewing the records, it was established that the core issue revolved around whether one-time Cenvat credit was admissible for inputs cleared by a trader on 1-4-2003 and received by the assessee on 1-4-2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents were entitled to the credit on the stock received on 1-4-2003, as per the amended Rule 9A. The Circular dated 30-4-2003 further supported this interpretation.
The Tribunal noted that the Circular changed the relevant date for input stock declaration to 1-4-2003, making inputs as of that date eligible for one-time credit under Rule 9A. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)' order, rejecting the Revenue's argument that the fabrics in question were not duty-attracting at the supplier's factory. Additionally, since the goods were received from a trader, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the respondents.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the entitlement of the respondents to the deemed credit under Rule 9A based on the stock received on 1-4-2003, in line with the Circular and the amended provisions.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1017
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the case with the order "Delay condoned. Dismissed." The High Court of Delhi had made a reference in this matter. Key names include Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice Aftab Alam. Petitioners were represented by Mr. K. Radhakrishnan and others, while respondents were represented by Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail and others.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1016
The Supreme Court of India granted leave and expedited the hearing for the case. The citation is 2009 (3) TMI 1016 - SC. The High Court of Karnataka had an earlier order in 2008 (3) TMI 285. Justices S. H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam presided over the case. Petitioner represented by Gopal Subramanium, Harish Chander, Arijit Prasad, B. V. Balaram Das. Respondent represented by Pramod B. Agarwala, Praveena Gaut
-
2009 (3) TMI 1015
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal of a Cooperative Society for not accepting money by cheque after being informed about the legal position. The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit. (Case citation: 2009 (3) TMI 1015 - Bombay High Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 1014
In the case of C.A.D. 28767 of 2008, the Supreme Court admitted the appeals and expedited the hearing. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was impleaded as a respondent, and an amended memo of parties is to be filed within a week.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1013
Whether the byproduct emerging during the course of manufacture of final product, is required to reverse 10% of value of the exempted goods, in terms of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004? - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of NARMADA GELATINES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL [2008 (11) TMI 75 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that a waste arising out of principal process of manufacture does not burden the Assessee with levy u/r 6(3)(b) of CCR - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1012
Issues involved: The Revenue challenged the first appellate order deleting the addition of Rs. 33,24,137 including interest made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act.
Details of the Judgment:
1. Identification of creditors and genuineness of transactions: The AO rejected the claimed loan of Rs. 32,80,000 from 13 persons, stating that the confirmations filed were not duly signed. However, the assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the confirmations were duly signed, supported by affidavits, PAN copies, ledger copies, and IT return acknowledgments. The CIT(A) called for a remand report, where the AO confirmed that the creditors had indeed given the loans. The CIT(A) observed details such as bank balances and discussed the credibility of the creditors. Citing various legal precedents, including recent decisions by the jurisdictional High Court, it was held that once the identity of creditors is established and they confirm the credit, the burden shifts to the Revenue to disprove the transaction. The Court emphasized that the capacity of the lender to advance money need not be established by the assessee, as that would amount to proving the source of the source, which is not required. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had discharged its onus, and the addition u/s 68 could not be sustained without evidence that the source of the creditor's deposit came from the assessee.
2. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents, including decisions by the jurisdictional High Court, to support its decision. These included cases such as CIT vs. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd., Shankar Industries vs. CIT, CIT vs. First Point Finance Ltd., CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Ors., Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO, Kanhaialal Jangid vs. Asstt. CIT, and Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO. These cases highlighted the importance of establishing the identity of creditors, obtaining confirmations, and shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue to disprove the transaction.
3. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the first appellate order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and rejecting the ground challenging the deletion of the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on the findings and legal principles discussed in the judgment.
........
|
9911796707
