Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2001 2001 (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 361 to 365 of 365 Records

• 2001 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment, Notice, Writ - It is alleged that the respondent issued a notice dated September 8, 2000, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the appellant, intimating that a part of income assessable for the year 1999-2000 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, and calling upon the appellant to file a return in the prescribed form for that assessment year. To quash the same the appellant filed the writ petition. - The appellant has not been able to satisfy that there is any infirmity in the notice or want of jurisdiction. On consideration, we find that there is no error or illegality in the order of the learned single judge, so as to call for any interference.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 4 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - The show-cause notice dated July 16, 1997, was issued to the company as well as its directors demanding the duty and it was also proposed to impose penalties. The replies had been filed to this notice and the proceedings were pending till September 1, 1998, when the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was introduced. Under this Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which came into force on September 1, 1998, the declarations were to be made on or before December 31, 1998. Under the said scheme, the company settled the matter and the settlement became final with the payment of 50 per cent. of the tax as envisaged by the Scheme itself. However, the declarations made on behalf of the directors and others, i.e., co-noticees, were not accepted and the order was passed on October 30, 1998, against them. Thereafter, an order was passed on November 30, 1998, imposing penalties on the directors and others.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 3 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Service Tax – Manpower recruiting agencies (1) Penalty (2) Tax liability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ce tax imposed upon them. However, this Tribunal cannot have any option but to say that every person must conform to the law, and be prepared to pay the price if he chooses not to be so. I do not find it possible to say that where a person chooses not to pay the tax that he knows is payable on the expectation that the methods that he employs will succeed, and the tax will be withdrawn, he has acted in good faith. On the other hand, such a person deliberately and wilfully chooses not to pay tax. We need to reflect only for a moment to see that if such an attitude is practised by the majority with regard to charges that they are required to pay for goods and services enjoyed by them, there will be a complete breakdown of society. Nor do I find it possible to say that the refusal by the appellants was based on a moral objection to the levy of tax. No such claim is made, either. In these circumstances I do not find any justification for reduction of penalty. 4. Appeals dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax Appeal against the Commissioners order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... imposed on I.T.P.O. It is not in dispute that the present order has been passed by the Commissioner under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 which provides for assessment/re-assessment of the value of taxable service which has escaped assessment. The provisions of Section 85 are very clear which provides that any person aggrieved by any assessment order passed by the Central Excise Officer under Sections 71, 72, or 73 or denying his liability to be assessed under this Chapter, or by any order levying interest or penalty under this chapter may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In clear terms of provisions of Section 85 and following the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in Bharti Cellular Ltd. the appeal is even against the Commissioner s order lies with the Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter on merit. The appeal is, thus, allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Refund on the goods transport operator or clearing and forwarding agents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... le Supreme Court but fairly agreed that there is no stay and there is no order regarding the retrospective effect of the amendments made in Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000. 3. Ms. Anaya Ray, SDR submits that the Parliament has already validated the action taken by the Department and thus there is no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record including the copy of the order, dated 3-5-2001 of the Honorable Supreme Court, we find that there is no stay with regard to the Finance Act provisions referred to by the appellate authority. It is also seen that even the writ petition has not been admitted and the matter had been adjourned by the Honorable Supreme Court. 5. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

  ---

1 ....1516171819