Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 341 to 354 of 354 Records

• 2003 (6) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  By this writ application the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – maintainability - I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits; simply because I am not willing to decide such question before initiation of criminal proceedings, I have decided not to entertain this application. The writ application is, thus, dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty under section 18(1)(c) - "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the cancellation of the penalties levied by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act?" - we, therefore, cannot presume that the assessee had a mala fide intention to furnish inaccurate particulars. As mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence and as both the appellate authorities have arrived at a finding that the assessee had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of the asset in question, we would not like to come to a different conclusion with regard to the intention of the assessee. - it cannot be said that the Tribunal had committed an error

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Tax avoidance - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in finding that tax was avoided without ascertaining whether there is any revenue loss on account of non-inclusion of the income in question in the assessee's assessment and its inclusion in the assessment of the sister concerns?" - the Tribunal was right when it came to the conclusion that tax was avoided and for coming to the said conclusion it was not necessary for the Tribunal to ascertain whether any loss was caused to the Revenue - we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Power of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to receive additional evidence - Assessing Officer was of the view that there is no evidence of the identity and capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions and hence made an addition u/s 68 - In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee had produced two confirmation letters which were rejected by the CIT (Appeals) - Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the first appellate authority had any case that the assessee was given several opportunities to produce the confirmatory letters and that the assessee did not avail of the said opportunity by obtaining and producing the confirmatory letters from the two persons – Thus, CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit additional evidence – Further held that processing charges received will not constitute part of the export turnover since only sale proceeds of goods or merchandise alone will form part of the turnover

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Imposition of interest under section 201(1A) – non deduction of tax at source on payments made to employees - Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee had paid bonus which forms part of the salary and therefore there was statutory obligation cast on the assessee to deduct tax from such payment - Orders were passed under section 201 declaring the assessee-in-default - orders of the assessing authority passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are legal and valid since there was no period of limitation in view of the omission of section 231 from April 1,1989, prior to the expiry of the period of limitation provided in the said section – Thus, imposition of interest was liable to be sustained

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital/Revenue expenditure - Actual cost of assests – Depreciation - payment of gratuity to these employees till the date of transfer was deferred by reason of the terms of the agreement and the liability accrued till that date and payable by the transferor was taken over by the assessee. Thus, this liability became part of the consideration paid for the assets transferred and is liable to be added to the consideration mentioned in the agreement. It cannot be construed otherwise. This is to be treated as capital expenditure – Thus, Tribunal was justified in law in directing to recompute the cost of the assets treating the gratuity liability as part of the actual cost of the assets and allow depreciation accordingly

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Contention of the petitioner is that he has filed an appeal against the block assessment order, which is pending before the CIT (Appeals), - An application filed under section 220(6) has been rejected by the Assistant CIT after a period of more than one year, on the ground that more than a year has passed and he had not deposited the amount and therefore the demand cannot be stayed - A perusal of the impugned order shows that discretion which has been exercised by CIT in rejecting the application, does not give any reason nor has it been exercised judiciously, therefore, liable to be set aside. – Petition allowed

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Assessing Officer in the instant case had jurisdiction under the Act to refer the question of cost of construction of a building constructed by the assessee to the Departmental Valuation Officer. - According to us, section 142(2) of the Act enables the Assessing Officer to refer the question of cost of construction of a building for the limited purpose of gathering information regarding the cost of construction. It did not have any binding effect on the Assessing Officer. It only had the effect of information gathered in an enquiry. – As per sub-section (2) of 142, “For the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person, the Income-tax Officer may make such enquiry as he considers necessary." – Thus, Assessing Officer was well within his power to gather information regarding the cost of construction by making a reference to the Executive Engineer, Valuation Cell.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Review - order was not detailed due to a bona fide mistake - In impugned order application preferred by the respondent-assessee u/s 254(2), has been allowed. – Revenue contend that this course amounts to reviewing the earlier order which is not permissible under the law - In fact, in the present case a finding in favour of the respondent-assessee was already recorded in the main order passed by the Tribunal on July 13, 2001. The said main order passed by the Tribunal on July 13, 2001, was not challenged by the Revenue at any stage. In fact, the Tribunal has already recorded a finding against the Revenue but the operative part of the order was not detailed due to a bona fide mistake. By the impugned order the operative part of the earlier order has been clarified. Against such an order we find that no appeal would be maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved in the said appeal.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – (1) Late payment by Government Department (2) Delay cause (3) Interest

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d by the statement being sent to DOT Headquarters is avoided. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the appellant is a Central Government Department and that it had been strictly following the procedure approved by Principal Chief Controller of Accounts and which procedure has resulted in the delay and the fact that the amount received from the subscribers were deposited on a day to day basis in the Post Office to the account of the Central Government, we find that the appellant cannot be burdened with the liability to pay interest. We make it clear that this view is being taken only in the facts of this case where the delay is caused in depositing the service tax in the specific account of the Central Government by none other than a department of the Central Government and also because of the fact that the amount was deposited in the account of the Central Government on a day to day basis. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Service Tax – (1) Payment made by cheque (2) Realization of cheque

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of interest/penalty etc. However, if the cheque is not honoured in due course or the clearance is abnormally delayed for any lapse on the part of the assessee, the department would be free to take penal action etc. as deemed fit. 2. Shri Hemant Kotikar, ld. SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue has brought to my notice the amended provisions of Rule 2A of the Service Tax Rules. It clearly provides that if the assessee deposits the service tax by cheque, the date of presentation of cheque to the bank designated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs for this purpose shall be deemed to be the date on which service tax has been paid subject to realization of that cheque. In this case it is undisputed that the cheques have been realized a day or two later. He therefore clearly concedes that the appellants have got some merits and he has no objection for allowing the appeal filed by the appellants. 3. In view of above said position, I allow the appeal filed by the appellants.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 4 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Service Tax – (1) Late payment (2) Failure to perform statutory obligation (3) Imposition of penalty

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 3 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Collection of telecom charges - Late payment - No delay on part of appellant so could not be faulted for following collection and accounting procedure laid down by govt. itself so interest not payable

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 2 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – If any amount are collected erroneously which is not in force, there is no bar to the return of such service tax amount

  ---

1 ....1415161718