|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 655 Records
-
2007 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue has challenged the order-in-original on various grounds on which there are no findings by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that they have no difficulty in appearing before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) if the matter is remanded back. 4. We find that the Revenue is correct in contending that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the issue in its entirety. We also find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), reasoning for upholding the order is very sketchy and is devoid of any reasons. As such, the said order is unsustainable. 5. Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed by way of remand to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to re-consider the issue afresh. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand, keeping all issues open. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) may grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents herein before come to any conclusion.
-
2007 (9) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to such an apprehension. on the other hand we find that the bail applications moved by the appellants had been rejected by the Sessions Judge a few days prior to the passing of the order of detention on October 11, 1988. The grounds of detention disclose that the appellants were engaged in activities which are offences punishable with imprisonment under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was a reasonable prospect of the appellants not being further remanded to custody on October 13, 1988 and their being released from custody at the time when the order for preventive detention of that appellant was passed on October 11, 1988. 27. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that on this ground alone the order of detention passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.
-
2007 (9) TMI 680 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Whether penalty under Section 11AC, is liable to be imposed on the assessee, equal to the amount of duty confirmed under Section 11A and interest under Section 11AB can be levied in the present case, on merits, which fall under the purview of explanation to Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where duty has been deposited before issue of show cause notice? After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record we find that the matter is not res integra, inasmuch as, we have already decided similar appeals against the revenue and in favour of the assessee in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. M/s Omkar Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. (C.E.A. No. 5 of 2007, decided on 28.8.2007) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. M/s Crop Chemical India Ltd. and another (C.E.A. No. 6 of 2007, decided on 31.8.2007). In view of the above, instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
-
2007 (9) TMI 679 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ase not proper that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss the explanation furnished by the appellants for the delay while rejecting their appeal on the ground of limitation. I consider it necessary that the lower authority causes verification of the records of his office to ensure that the appeal had not been received in time. 6. It appears from the impugned order No.92/06 (P) that the appellants had filed the appeal in that case within 90 days. The appeal was not filed after 92 days of its receipt as found in the impugned order nor barred by limitation. Date of receipt of the order by the appellant is 13.8.2005. Date of receipt of the appeal by the Commissioner is 11.11.2005. I find that the appeal was filed within 90 days. The lower authority shall consider this appeal on merits. Accordingly both the matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeals afresh. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2007 (9) TMI 678 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of Revision petition - Compounding of Offence - rejection of Revision Petition on the ground that the Revision Petition filed is not maintainable, since petitioner himself had compounded the offence departmentally in lieu of the prosecution proceedings - whether the petitioner can be a person who can object to an order passed by the Intelligence Officer of the Department?
Held that: - in fact, the petitioner had filed an application before the authorities concerned to compound the offence departmentally. Once the offer is made, it is for the prescribed authority to determine whether the offence should be compounded or not. The process of compounding would be complete only when the money offered is accepted by the authority concerned. Once the compounding of the offence is complete, the person who has committed or reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under the Act cannot be aggrieved person.
In the present case, an offer was made by the assessee/dealer and it was accepted and there was exchange of money between the assessee and the authorities under the Act. Therefore, compounding the offence was complete. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person can object to such an order made by the authorities under the Act.
A person in respect of whom an order of compounding made is not entitled to challenge the same by filing a petition under Section 36 or 38 of the Act - both the authorities, viz., Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as well as Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are justified in rejecting the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner/dealer/assessee.
Petition dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 677 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lities. The AO has considered ₹ 3,12,73,178 while determining the profit of Chaitanya Tower project in asst. yr. 2002-03. This amount relates to the common amenities and infrastructure to be developed in the project. No common amenity or infrastructure was provided till 31st March, 2002. Based on this CIT(A) has held that this amount should be excluded from gross receipt of the project for determining the taxable income in asst. yr. 2002-03. We have already disposed of the assessee’s appeal where we have held that the income is not taxable in the hands of the assessee firm in asst. yr. 2002-03. Therefore, the said amount of ₹ 3,12,73,178 has to be considered in asst. yr. 2003-04 when the project was completed by M/s Twinkle. This ground of the Department has become consequential ground, which does not require any adjudication upon. o p /o p In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is disposed of as above. o p /o p
-
2007 (9) TMI 676 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... affirmative, we proceed to examine the assessment order in the instant case in order to find out whether the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the Assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is discernible therefrom. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has, in regard to initiation of penalty proceedings, observed as follows Assessed at ₹ 39,580/-. Issue necessary forms and demand notice. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately.? The above recording does not satisfy the requirement of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act as explained by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited. Further even on a detailed perusal of the assessment order no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings are required to be initiated against the Assessee is discernible. None has also been pointed out to us. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 675 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nst the Assessee. In view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited (2000) 246 ITR 568 which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, no substantial question of law arises.
-
2007 (9) TMI 674 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... exemption setting out conditions on which acts, which are made punishables under other provisions of the statute, may be done does not per Dr. G.P. Sekar operate to make non-observance of the conditions criminal. In other words, the proviso, which with the exceptions for imposition of penalty, cannot act as a proviso which enables the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty, and also the exception clause cannot act as a main rule for imposition of penalty. 19. We have also gone through the Budget, speech of the Finance Minister while introducing the Finance Bill, 1995, and also the CBDT Circular No. 717, dated 14th August, 1995, which also do not throw any light on the nature of offence on which penalty is imposable under s. 158BFA(2) of the Act. 20 In the light of the case laws discussed above and in view of the the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we delete the penalty levied u/s. 158BFA(2) of the Act is deleted. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 673 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the instant case in order to find out whether the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the Assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is discernible therefrom. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has, in regard to initiation of penalty proceedings, observed as follows ?Assessed u/s 143(3) at the total income of ₹ 3,84,26,360/-. Demand Notice and Challans are issued. Interest as per law is charged. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been initiated .? The above recording does not satisfy the requirement of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act as explained by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited. Further even on a detailed perusal of the assessment order no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings are required to be initiated against the Assessee is discernible. None has also been pointed out to us. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 672 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court in the case CCE & C, Aurangabad v. Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.). However, we agree with the respondent’s plea that since these provisions were introduced from September, 1996, the interest and penalty cannot be demanded in respect of the demand pertaining to the period prior to September, 1996 when the Sections 11AB and 11AC were introduced. We therefore while allowing the appeal of the Revenue, hold that the penalty and interest can be demanded only in respect of the demand pertaining to the period from September, 1996 onwards and not before that and for this limited purpose of quantification of amount, the matter is remanded back to the original authority to determine the exact amount of interest and penalty so payable and intimate the same to the assessee after hearing them and the same shall be payable by the M/s. Indian Oxygen Company Limited. 6. The appeals are disposed in the above terms. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (9) TMI 671 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al in ITA No. 93 (Delhi) of 2005 for the assessment year 1994-95 in which the penalty levied against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) has been cancelled. It has been noticed in the order that the assessee was assessed at a loss and, therefore, no penalty was leviable. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Virtual Soft Systems v. CIT 2007 289 ITR 831, this conclusion is unexceptionable. So the assessment order for assessment year 1994-95 is of no assistance to the revenue. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue as regards assessment year 1995-96 is without merit. 12. As regards the assessment year 1996-97, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee that pursuant to the appeal effect given by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax by his order dated 30-4-1999, the assessed income is a loss. Consequently, even for this assessment year, there can be no penalty. 13. No substantial question of law arises in these appeals. 14. These appeals are dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 670 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the reference is more than 20 years old. We find that learned counsel for the assessee has offered no convincing explanation why the income from the sub-letting of the premises in its control should not be treated as income from house property. The only submission made by learned counsel for the assessee is that property must be owned by the assessee before the rent received therefrom can be treated as income from house property. We are unable to agree. 6. We find that the assessee was in full control of the property in its capacity as a tenant. The assessee earned income from sub-letting of the house property. There is nothing to suggest that ownership of the premises is essential for the purposes of levying income-tax, in a situation such as the present, under the head 'Income from house property'. 7. Under the circumstances, the first question is answered in the affirmative that is in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 8. The reference is disposed of.
-
2007 (9) TMI 669 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax for those years. As the petitioner was not required to pay tax in view of the exemption granted to him under Section 11 of the Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of advance tax. Consequently, the interest could not have been levied on the petitioner as he was not supposed to pay of advance tad during those assessment years. Since there was not obligation on the part of the petitioner to pay the tax in view of exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98, the petitioner could not pay the taxes in advance. In this view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner claiming waiver of the interest should have been allowed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner cannot be made to pay the interest without any fault of his. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-G is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quailed. Petitioner’s prayer for waiver of interest is allowed. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.
-
2007 (9) TMI 668 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... de in conformity with the decision of the High Court, just because the decision was reversed by the Apex Court, liability to pay advance tax cannot be fastened on the assessee. At the relevant point of time, it was not possible for the assessee to foresee the decision of the Supreme Court on the point “Lex non go co git ad impossibilla” (Law cannot compel you to do the impossible). Before invoking Section 234B of the Act, it is essential to see whether the assessee comes within the sweep of this section. The pre-condition for invoking Section 234B of the Act is that the assessee must be fastened with the liability to pay advance tax. As the assessee was not liable to make the payment of advance tax, the case of the assessee would not come within the ambit of Section 234B of the Act.” Accordingly, the question is answered against the revenue in terms of Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/s Haryana Warehousing Corporation (supra).
-
2007 (9) TMI 667 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pointed out that in the case of the assessee, the entire income was claimed to be exempted and the claim with regard to depreciation was not even looked into by the revenue. Accordingly, exemption was granted to the assessee. However, when the proceedings were reopened, the CIT (A) has opined that the revenue was bound to consider the permissible deduction against the income which is sought to be assessed under Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the view in its order dated 9.8.2005, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. We asked Mr. Yogesh Putney as to whether any appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the aforementioned order. In response to the query made by us, Mr. Putney has placed on record a letter dated 23.8.2007, sent by the department stating that no such appeal has been filed as per the record. The aforementioned letter is taken on record as Mark ‘B’. In view of above, question No. (i) is also answered against the revenue.
-
2007 (9) TMI 666 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? After hearing learned counsel for the assessee-appellant and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise, inasmuch as, the matter is not res integra. We have already rejected appeals bearing I.T.A. Nos. 278 and 279 of 2007 in the case of M/s Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CIT, decided on 31.7.2007, wherein similar questions of law were raised. The Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue by following the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579, which is fully applicable to the instant appeal. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. In view of the above, this appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 665 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rkar, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 664 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... red in the bill of entry as ‘Reconditioned Incomplete Copier Incorporation Optical Systems’. Examination of the goods confirmed that they were incomplete, old, photocopiers. It is in this factual situation that the Commissioner found that there was no mis-declaration and the fines and penalties imposed were excessive. Upon perusing the record and hearing both sides, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Description of the goods was correctly declared. There is no evidence on record about the appellant having declared a value other than the transaction value. The item under import is an office equipment. Clearly, the Commissioner has not acted illegally or improperly. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, there is no compelling reason to interfere with the order. It is upheld and the appeals are rejected. 8. In view of the above decision, I find no merit in the appeals the same are dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (9) TMI 663 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... lways and for the services rendered by the appellants, they were rewarded by the railways. However, in regard to the services rendered by the appellants to the first class passengers, they were receiving consideration directly from the passengers albeit at the rate prescribed by the railways. In respect of this part of the service in question, the revenue is yet to establish that it is a 'customer care service provided on behalf of the client'. We have not found any plea of financial hardships in the present application. However, ld. consultant has submitted that the appellants have been serving the railways out of their limited financial resources. 4. After careful consideration of all aspects presented before us, we are of the view that the appellants should pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs only) for the purpose of section 35F of the Central Excise Act. They shall deposit this amount within 8 weeks and report compliance on 10-12-2007.
........
|
