|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 873 Records
-
2010 (1) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... stances of the case, this Civil Appeal is dismissed. Question of law is kept open.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1167 - SC ORDER
Exemption- Notification No. 89/95-C.E.- The respondents are manufacturers of edible vegetable refined oil and vanaspathi falling under sub-heading Nos. 1508/1510/1512/1516 etc., of the Central Excise Tariff, the respondents procure crude vegetable oil from various sources and convert/process the: same into refined vegetable edible oils and vanaspathi - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus PRIYANKA REFINERIES LTD. [2009 (5) TMI 419 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that the soap stock which arises/emerges during the refining of vegetable oil is a waste for the respondents, though the Revenue may call it as a by-product. Accordingly, on merits as well as on the law, the Revenue (Appeals) is devoid of merits - Held that: - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus PRIYANKA REFINERIES LTD. upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1166 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see were either false or forged or were not answering the description of the goods, which had been brought in, no discrepancy has been found by the Tribunal in its order against Form-31, which was produced before the order of seizure. 10. Having heard learned counsels for both sides, 1 am of the opinion that since the Tribunal had not recorded any adverse finding against Forms-31, which were placed by the assessee before the passing of the seizure order it could not be said that the assessee did not have the required documents or that any intention to evade the tax was reflected from the documents that were there before the Tribunal or even there before the assessing authority. Thus, the provisions of Section 15-A(1) (o) of the Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty is not justified. The questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The penalty is deleted. 11. This Revision is allowed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1165 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Smuggling of contraband goods - misdeclaration - initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner
-
2010 (1) TMI 1164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld not form part of the block assessment since the details of the sundry creditors were already available with the department as part of the regular return. The CIT (Appeals) held that it was a settled proposition of law that the subject matter of an assessment under Section 158 BC was undisclosed income found as a result of a search or as a result of a related investigation. The deletion has been confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. 3. The view which has been taken by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference having regard to the position that the credit balances on account of sundry creditors admittedly appear in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31st March, 2002 which was filed together with the return for Assessment Year 200203. Hence, these form a part of the regular return filed by the assessee and could not be made the subject matter of the block assessment. 4. The Appeal therefore does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1163 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... for the appellant. Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1162 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Issuance of SCN - Recovery of erroneous refund - Principles of restitution - the order granting refund is reversed by the higher forum, whether issuance of SCN u/s 11A was necessary? - Held that: - reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex.,Shilong Vs. Woodcraft Products Ltd. [2002 (4) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] where the Supreme Court has ruled that on the principle of restitution no such notice was necessary - no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal - Appeal is thus dismissed in limini.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1161 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee was that it was provision for guarantee fees payable pertaining to the prior year. Since no documentary evidence of the expenditure was filed before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the matter back to the file of the AO and the assessee is directed to file details of the interest expenditure on guarantee actually incurred alongwith the documentary evidence for the same. Since the assessee has already reversed this entry of expenses and offered income for AY 2007-08, the AO is directed to verify the assessment particulars for AY 2007-08, wherein income offered on account of interest was accepted by the department while framing the assessment. The AO is to decide the issue afresh by considering all these factual position. We direct accordingly. 28. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in all the years are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 22nd January, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1160 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... manded. Further, she also submits that Original Adjudicating Authority has not supplied them the relied upon documents, on the ground that advocate did not file the Vakalatnama. She submits that while remanding the matter Original Adjudicating Authority may be directed to supply the relied upon documents. 2. We have considered the submissions. In view of the fact that this Tribunal has already remanded the matter on the same issue and appeal filed in the same order, this matter also required to be remanded. We also find that the request made by the learned advocate regarding supply of documents is reasonable. Accordingly, we remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority to decide the liability for rebate and penalty separately in respect of different individuals and also supply the relied upon documents before passing the order. Further, the appellants shall be given proper opportunity to present their case before the final decision is taken. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2010 (1) TMI 1159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ajendra Kumar Singh Yadav and Surendra Singh Yadav respectively and an Affidavit was filed by the said Officer stating therein that the order had been passed due to mistake in absence of report of the Chief Development Officer. The impugned orders were, therefore, quashed by this Court on 18.1.2010. The case of the petitioner is identical and he is, therefore, entitled for similar relief. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.12.2009 is quashed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1158 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... his case also. As regards the clearance of dyes, the learned advocate submits that unlike the other case, here there is no proper annexure to the show cause notice. Thereby it is not possible to identify whether the demand made by the department is in respect of the same goods or not. In any case since the other appeal cited above has been remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in the light of views expressed therein and in this case also as far as dyes are concerned same logic which was applied to Agro Chemicals would apply that is to say there is a need for discussion in respect of each item as to why the benefit of notification cannot be extended, the matter is required to be remanded. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and allow the stay petition and remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after considering submissions made by the appellants if they choose to make submissions before him. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (1) TMI 1157 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay - delay in filing review petition - Held that: - no case for review of our order is made out both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits and accordingly the review petition is dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the court is empowered to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI even when the charge sheet has been submitted?
Whether the investigation concluded in the present case cannot be said to be satisfactorily held?
-
2010 (1) TMI 1155 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... opinion, no case for review of our order is made out on merits and accordingly the review petitions are dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1154 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... counsel on both sides. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1153 - SC ORDER
Prohibited goods - import - Held that: - Applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi [2003 (7) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the assessee did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria, which makes the imported item a prohibited goods - SLP dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1152 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... provision for rectification of mistake in terms of Section 25C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only to orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Since there is no provision under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 for entertaining rectification of mistake application w.r.t. Revisionary Authority’s order, the said rectification of mistake application is not maintainable. 8. Govt. further observes that the Revisionary Authority has already passed an order No. 310/06, dated 28-4-2006 in the revision application No. 198/372/2005-RA filed by department. Rather than relying on only Para 6 of the order No. 78/2001, dated 15-6-2007 (copy enclosed) cited in the said revision order, it is to be read in toto as rightly pointed out by respondent so as to correctly interpret the order. Since the issue is already decided by Revisionary Authority vide order 310/06, dated 28-4-2006, Government rejects the revision application being devoid of merit. 9. So ordered.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1151 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - whether the activities of the applicant came within the definition of “income of educational institution”? - Whether an educational institution would cease to exist ‘solely’ for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit merely because it has generated surplus income over a period of 4/5 years after meeting its expenditure?
(B) Whether the amount spent on acquiring/ constructing capital assets wholly and exclusively becomes part of the total income or it becomes entitled to exemption u/s 10 (23C)(vi)?
(C) Whether an institution registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, lose its character as an educational institution, eligible to apply for exemption under Section 10 (23C)(vi) -
HELD THAT:- Our answer to the aforesaid questions would be the same as has been given in Pinegrove International Charitable Trust’s case[2010 (1) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT] and the same reasoning is adopted. It is pertinent to notice that Question No. (A) has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Questions Nos. (B) and (C) have been answered jointly in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The omnibus principles of law have been culled out in para 8.13. All these principles would apply to the facts of each of the cases in this bunch of petitions as well because the guidance for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) has been derived from proviso 13th (un-numbered) by their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in American Hotel and Lodging Association’s case [2008 (5) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT].
In the light of the discussion, the first thing which becomes evident is that capital assets acquired/constructed by the educational institutions have been treated as income in a blanket manner without recording any finding whether the capital assets have been applied and utilised to advance the purpose of education. It is obligatory on the part of the prescribed authority while considering the application for grant of exemption, whether expenditure incurred as capital investment is on the object of education or not. It is appropriate to mention that in all these cases, the impugned orders passed by the Chief CIT are similar in substance and appears to have been inspired by the view in the case of M/s Queens Educational Society [2007 (9) TMI 347 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT], which we have not accepted in the main judgment rendered today in the case of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust’s case[2010 (1) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT]. The competent authority is also required to consider the question of advancement of loanto the employees of the college, which was given to one Shri O.P. Joshi, Principal of the institution in its proper perspective. The advancement of loans to the employees of the institution cannot be regarded as mis-application of he fund because good service conditions for its employees would always attract talented persons to an educational institution. If facilities like housing, loan, car loan etc., which have prevalent in the Public Sector and Government institutions, are given then necessarily it would be regarded as expenditure spent on the object of education and not to any other purpose.
Likewise, it would be a relevant factor if an institution has enjoyed exemption for the last 2½ decades - The competent authority should have recorded findings of facts insofar as the remunerations paid to Shri Suresh Chander, who is Director of the School and to his wife Smt. Usha Rani, who is teacher in the school, are concerned. If the remunerations have been paid in their capacity as an employee rendering the service to the school as Director or Teacher then it would be proper to interpret the same to be for education purpose. But if the remunerations have been paid farcically then the payment made to such persons must be reckoned to have been spent on a purpose other than education. In order to avoid any reference to all individual cases, it is suffice to mention that the competent authorities should not have read the judgment in the case of M/s Queens Educational Society like a statute. The Chief CIT should have followed the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Punjab Financial Corporation [2001 (12) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], holding that submission of Audit Report in Form 10BB is not mandatory and it could be filed even after the filing of return. The aforesaid difficulty has arisen - The respondents could have easily awaited the outcome of the appeals pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It would have avoided unnecessary litigation, time and expenses.
These petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the Chief CIT refusing to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) or renew the same are hereby quashed. However, we leave it open to the respondents to pass any fresh orders, if any such necessity is felt after considering every individual case in the light of various propositions of law culled out by us in the preceding paras.
The writ petitions stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1150 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s. Mehta Steel Corporation and Shreeji Steels, associate concern of the assessee. The assessee failed to show that the amount advanced was out of interestfree funds. The assessee has not disputed the facts that the amount paid was out of borrowed funds. Accordingly, since facts remained that the interest-bearing funds have been diverted for giving advances without charging any interest and without demonstrating that the advances was in the course of business, the disallowance of interest is to be upheld. 11. Ground No. 6 relates to disallowance out of car and scooter expenses of ₹ 10,000 was not pressed at the time of hearing. This ground dismissed for want of prosecution. 12. Ground No. 7 is regarding disallowance of ₹ 7,500 out of telephone expenses was also not pressed at the time of hearing. This ground is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on January 8, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1149 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - CENVAT credit - operation, maintenance of captive wind mill plant - Held that: - this Tax Appeal filed u/s 35-G of the CEA, 1944, is admitted, as the issue involves question of law and the questions of law referred to hereinabove are formulated for determination and consideration of this court - appeal admitted.
............
|
