|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 812 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... gs. The Revenue filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals. 5. The Revenue is relying upon the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that as the respondents are not maintaining separate records in respect of the common inputs, therefore are liable to pay 8 of the price of the goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification 214/86-CE. 6. We find that the respondents were reversing proportionate credit availed in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared under Notification 214/86-CE at nil rate of duty. The provisions of Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules are retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010 to the effect that proportionate reversal of credit in respect of inputs gone into manufacture of goods cleared at nil rate of duty is sufficient. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 811 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹ 9,20,818/-. None appears on behalf of the applicant nor is there any compliance report on the record. In view of that the appeal is dismissed for want of compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 810 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... National Shipowners Association v. Union of India - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.). Prior to 18-4-2006, recipient of the service in India was not liable to pay Service Tax on the services provided by Foreign Service providers. Therefore, the impugned demand on M/s. Iftex Oil & Chemical Ltd. is not sustainable in law. 5.3 As far as the foreign entity M/s. Ethyl Petroleum Additives Inc., USA is concerned, it does not come within the jurisdiction of the Indian Service Tax authorities and it has not rendered any service in India. The service provider has supplied only technical know-how and supply of technical know-how does not come under the purview of Management Consultancy Service. If that be so, the question of liability on the foreign entity for the services rendered from abroad is also not sustainable. 6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order as the same is patently illegal and incorrect. The appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 809 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... purview of ‘Cargo Handling Service’. Nevertheless, the recipient of the service, M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. has discharged service tax liability under the category of ‘Goods Transport Agency Service’. For the movement of the coal within the mining area, this Tribunal in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax 2008 (9) S.T.R. 531 and Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. B.K. Thakkar 2008 (9) S.T.R. 542 has held that excavation and transportation of coal/iron ore within mining area does not come under the category of ‘Cargo Handling Service’. Thus, prima facie, we find that the demand of service tax under the category of ‘Cargo Handling Service’ is not sustainable in law. 7. Therefore, we grant waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 808 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ocation of extended period of time for confirmation of Service Tax demand and imposition of penalties on the appellant appear to be sustainable in law. 5.5 The appellant has not pleaded any financial hardship nor any evidence placed before us in that respect. As discussed above, the appellant has not made out any prima facie case in their favour. Therefore the balance of convenience lies in favour of Revenue and the appellant needs to be put to terms for hearing of the appeal. 6. In the light of the foregoing, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50 of the Service Tax demand confirmed against them (including the payments already made) within a period of 8 weeks and report compliance on 19-8-2013. On such compliance, pre-deposit of balance of Service Tax, interest and penalties adjudged against the appellant shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court on 17-6-2013)
-
2013 (6) TMI 807 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r when he has been permitted by the Customs Authorities itself to redeem on payment of fine and appropriate duty. The petitioner has already paid the fine and the duty as well. Therefore, I allow that prayer of the petitioner. 13. Let the gold biscuits be returned to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond of ₹ 5 lakhs on condition that he will produce all the seized gold biscuits without changing the nature and character of the same in the Trial Court as and when required. 14. It is to be mentioned herein that the trial is yet to be commenced and charge has not yet been framed. The learned Trial Court is directed to frame charge within a period of one month hence and complete the trial without any delay within a period of six months from date on top priority basis. 15. The revisional application is disposed of. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for both parties as early as possible.
-
2013 (6) TMI 806 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A and Rule 8D - Assessee was engaged in the business of broking in shares and securities, trading in shares and securities as well as making investments. He received dividend income which was exempted from tax. The AO made disallowance of expenses u/s 14 A consisting of interest disallowance as per Rule 8D. Assessee claimed that he had not incurred any expenses for earning the dividend income and therefore, no disallowance should be made. HELD THAT : - While computing the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D, if the expenses are incurred in relation to the dividend received from trading shares, have to be excluded.
Decision in the case of - CCI LTD. VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], relied upon.
Minimum Alternate Tax - Allowability of rebate u/s 88E while computing the book profit u/s 115JB - The claim of the assessee regarding allowability of rebate u/s 88E while computing the book profit u/s 115JB was rejected by AO who observed that the provisions of section 88E applied only to the case where total income of the assessee includes income chargeable under the head “ profit and gains of business and profession” arising from taxable securities and not to the deeming provisions of section 115JB - HELD THAT : - Rebate u/s 88E in respect of payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has to be allowed even if total income is assessed u/s 115JB.
Decision in the case of M/S. HORIZON CAPITAL LIMITED, VERSUS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11 (2), [2010 (7) TMI 991 - ITAT BANGALORE], relied upon.
-
2013 (6) TMI 805 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... E. India Technology Centre P. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported as 327 ITR 456 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd., Vs. CIT (239 ITR 587) SC and decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., (supra) has held that mere remittance to non-resident will not make it obligatory on the part of person making payment to deduct tax at source, unless remittance contains wholly or partly taxable income. The Hon’ble Apex Court has rejected the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. DR. For the aforesaid reasons, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. 7. In the result, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of merit. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 11th of June, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (6) TMI 804 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... has placed on record a copy of the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in Asia Attractive Dividend Stock Fund Mother Fund v. DDIT (IT) ITA No.3908/Mum/2012 in which the penalty was deleted under identical circumstances. The reliance of the learned Departmental Representative on another order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Asia Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. decided on 13th April, 2011 is misplaced. In that case the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) by claiming a particular amount as long term capital gain arising from the sale of shares, which was in fact a short term capital gain chargeable to tax. Insofar as the instant appeal is concerned, the facts and circumstances are identical to that considered in Asia Attractive Dividend Stock Fund Mother Fund (supra). Respectfully following the precedent, we order for the deletion of penalty. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on this 26th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 803 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee-appellant, before apportionment thereof, under r. 8, was wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. 30. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order dt. 16th Nov, 2010, passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside and quashed and, in consequence thereof, the assessment order dt. 29th Dec, 2006, as well as the order, dt. 14th Feb., 2008, passed by the learned CIT(A)-I1, Guwahati, shall accordingly stand set aside and quashed. The respondents are hereby j directed to treat the receipts of premium on import licence, amounting to ₹ 1,20,25,812, sale of Scrap, amounting to ₹ 2,12,218, miscellaneous garden income amounting to ₹ 1,44,32,310 and excise duty amounting to ₹ 6,69,740, as the assessee-appellant's composite income before apportionment thereof in terms of r. 8 of the Rules. 31. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of. 32. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 802 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the refund amount at least from 1.6.2007 and therefore, the present petition is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent by modifying the impugned order passed by the authority. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeeds in part and it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest on the amount of refund i.e. ₹ 5,79,968/under Section 11 B of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2007 till 8.9.2009 (till actual date of refund amount) and consequently the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 19.11.2010 impugned in the present petition is modified to the aforesaid extent. The aforesaid amount of interest shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of present order and / or production of certified copy of the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 801 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... o;s case, there is no such writing off of the liabilities. Nor is there any contract between the two parties regarding the cessation of the liabilities. As far as the period of limitation in respect of the liabilities is concerned, it is seen that the same does not extinguish the liability as held in the case of CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd (Supra). Keeping in view the facts of the case as discussed above and applicable legal position, it is held that the provisions of section 41(1) were not applicable in the appellant’s case and the credit balances standing in the name of the creditors mentioned above, had neither ceased to exist nor had been remitted in terms of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 24,37,157/- made by the A.O. on this account is deleted.” 12. In result ground no. 2 of the revenue is dismissed. 13. In result the appeal of the revenue is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/6/2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 800 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... Officer in terms of Ground No 6 above, the impugned alternative plea therefore is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of above observations as well as on the basis of any further submissions that may be sought to be raised by the assessee in the ensuring remand proceedings. Thus, Ground No. 6 &7 in the appeal of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 30. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed." Nothing contrary has been brought to our knowledge. Thus, facts being similar so following same reasoning we set-aside the issue in question and remand the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same as per fact and law in the light of assessee's own case for earlier year and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 799 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... xpressing financial difficulties. Even if the whole amount received is treated as cum-service tax, the tax liability would be ₹ 70 lakhs as admitted by the appellant. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the plea of financial hardship while passing the interim order. This Tribunal has to take into account, prima facie case, interests of Revenue and balance of convenience while considering grant of stay. 6. In the present case, we find that no prima facie case has been made out against the demand of service tax. Therefore, Revenue’s interests needs to be protected and balance of convenience also lies in favour of Revenue. Therefore, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 35 lakhs within a period of twelve weeks and report compliance on 18-9-2013. On such compliance, pre-deposit of balance of service tax, interest and penalties shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 798 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed export declaration to allege the charges against the appellants that they were involve d in fraudulent clearance of the fake shipping bills and the enquiry officer has also observed that the above documents are pertinent to establish the charges against the appellants and directed the presenting officer to produce the same but those documents were not supplied to the appellants and the matter has been proceeded against the appellants without these documents. Therefore, we hold that there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice to proceed with the matter under Rule 22 of CHALR, 2004 without supplying the documents demanded by the appellants for their defence. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order with the direction to supply the documents discussed herein above to the appellants first, thereafter to proceed with the matter as per Rule 22 of CHALR, 2004. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated in Chamber)
-
2013 (6) TMI 797 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction under Section 80-IA(4) denied - validity of ex-parte order passed by tribunal - Held that:- As per Rule 25 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, when, on the date of hearing, the appellant appears and respondent does not appear, the Tribunal can dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the appellant. Proviso to the said rule also states that if the respondent satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance, then the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order. However, in our opinion, this rule cannot be interpreted to mean that in every case where decision has been reached by the Tribunal on merits and no glaring or apparent mistake whatsoever is shown therein, it is still to be recalled. Tribunal had taken a view that assessee was not eligible for a deduction under Section 80-IA after taking into account all the aspects relating to the case.
Assessee admittedly was only a partnership and not a limited company. As per the Revenue, assessee was only executing civil work for different organizations on contract basis. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that assessee being not a company registered in India, it could not avail of the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. Tribunal also came to correct factual finding that nothing was on record to show that the agreement entered by the assessee with Central Government, State Government, Local Authority or any statutory body were for developing any infrastructural facilities. Argument of the learned A.R. that partnership firm was a body established or constituted under a Centre or State Act cannot be accepted for the simple reason that had it been so, the Legislature would not have made specific limitation by virtue of the above clause, whereby only companies and corporate bodies of similar nature have been made eligible for claiming such deduction. - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (6) TMI 796 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... 4 and acquired the rights of such 7826.89 sq. mtrs. of plot and therefore 19.1.2005 building plan approval is to be considered first approval by the local authority of the assessee's housing project in question. 14. As a consequence, the date of completion of construction of such project is to be governed by sub-clause (ii) of clause(a) to Sec.80IB(10) and accordingly the assessee was entitled to complete the construction by 31.3.2009. The assessee obtained the final completion certificate on 20-12- 2008, as noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and therefore in our view the CIT(Appeals) made no mistake in holding that the assessee complies with the condition prescribed in clause (a) of section 80IB(10) of the Act. As a result, we hereby affirm the order of the CIT(Appeals) allowing assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10)of the Act. 15. In result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 795 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... by the judgement of Delhi ‘H’ Bench as discussed hereinabove in assessee’s own cases in preceding years i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09. We have no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 of the revenue are dismissed. Ground No.3 10. Apropos ground no.3, we observe that this ground is consequential to ground no. 1 and 2 of this appeal and since we have decided ground no.1 and 2 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to set off brought forward business losses and depreciation against the interest earned by the assessee on bank deposits. We have no reason to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, ground no. 3 of the revenue is also dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 794 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... be dismissed as not pressed. The Ld. DR has no objection if ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly we dismiss Ground No.1 being not pressed. 15. Ground No.2 is regarding treatment of Long Term Capital Gain as business income. This ground is common as in the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. We have hearing the Ld. AR as well as the Ld. DR and considered the relevant materials. From the details of the purchase and sale of share giving rise to the long term capital gain, we find that most of the shares were acquired by the Assessee during the financial year 1997 to 2004. In view of our finding for the assessment year 2005-06 we decide this issue in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue and hold that the long term capital gain arising from sale of share shall be treated as long term capital gain and not as business income. 16. In the result the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 19th June 2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 793 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Does advance or loan can be regarded as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - the Respondent Assessee Company is not a shareholder of M/s Rajrani Exports Private Limited - inspite of having common shareholders with none of them held 20% shares - The conditions precedent for attracting Section 2(22)(e)are not satisfied which are - the company making the payment should be a closely held company - the payment should have been made out of profits - and the payment of the loan or advance is not in the ordinary course of business activities of the company - Thus there is no question of law involved in this appeal - Appeal dismissed
............
|
