Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (5) 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 421 to 427 of 427 Records

• 2003 (5) TMI 8 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint u/s 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed against them as also the summoning order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate - In the case in hand, it is evident that the circulars issued by the income-tax authorities themselves provide an immunity from prosecution where the assessee admits the truth and pays the taxes properly. Nothing has been shown from the circular that the case would not be covered in the event of concealment. - Therefore, having regard to the fact that the case of the petitioners is covered by the instructions and clarifications - Besides, the penalty imposed on the petitioners has been set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not entitled to be absolved from criminal prosecution in view of the concealment, which concealment in fact entitles them to immunity from prosecution - As such it is to be taken that the offences attributed to the petitioners have been compounded and the continuation of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility - Petition is allowed and the complaint and the summoning order are quashed.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Additional ground - raised after the expiry of the prescribed time limit for filing appeal. - Tribunal had refused the prayer of the appellant to raise the additional ground only on the ground that it was not raised within the time allowed under section 253 of the Income-tax Act. It is for the Tribunal to permit or not to permit to raise additional ground as per the well-established practice and procedure. However, it is erroneous to say that a ground cannot be permitted to be raised after the expiry of a period of 60 days of limitation provided under section 253 - held that once the appeal is filed within the limitation, the memo of appeal can be amended as per the practice and procedure. - we propose to remit the entire matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Search - Addition on account of excess stock - whether the addition can be sustained on account of excess stock found during the search – Impugned question is basically a question of fact specially when no stock register was produced during the search when the question was put for this excess raw material, which was found, how this excess stock is available with the assessee - Considering the fact that the issue involved is basically a question of fact and admittedly the stock in excess was found and it was not explained at the time of search and as the Tribunal has already given substantial relief by reducing the addition of Rs. 2,35,953 to Rs. 1 lakh, no case is made out for admission.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 5 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Unexplained investment - section 69 - Income from Undisclosed Sources - "Whether, Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 85,000 as made by the Assessing Officer being unexplained investment in the purchases under section 69 and whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse?" - whether the assessee has surrendered any amount on account of excess stock found during the search, the Tribunal should verify the fact whether he has surrendered that amount on account of excess stock found during the search. If he has surrendered any amount against the excess stock, then the very addition is not justified, therefore, the Tribunal was required to verify the fact

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the respondents are entitled to the refund of income-tax paid by them by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax in the event of the assessment framed being nullified by the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction and there being no possibility of framing a fresh assessment - HC is not justified in holding that the refund must be limited to the income-tax paid pursuant to the order of assessment, other than income-tax paid by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax.

  An assessee will not be placed in a more disadvantageous position than what he would have been, had an assessment been made in accordance with law.

  Even under the unamended section 240 of the Act, the assessee was only entitled to the refund of tax paid in excess of the tax chargeable on the total income returned by the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 3 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Service Tax – Revision of negotiation order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Commissioner has dismissed the appeal only on 24-8-2000 and during the pendency of the appeal, the Commissioner has proceeded to revise the order on 22-7-99, which is contrary to the provisions of the statute, particularly in view of the wordings of Section 84(4) of the Finance Act. 5. I have carefully considered the matter. On going through the submissions made by both sides and in view of the wordings of Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, I find that there is lot of force in the arguments advanced by the Counsel on behalf of the appellants. As can be seen from the records, the Commissioner has proceeded to review the order when the matter was pending by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner was not empowered to review or revise the order when the matter was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). Since it was revised, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the result, appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 1 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Service Tax – Transportation charges - Refund

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the following order. 3. 8195 Heard Shri Narasimha Murthy learned DR for the Revenue. He justified the action of the Department in raising the demand and rejecting the refund claim. Alternatively he urged that even if service tax is not leviable on transportation charges being separate bills have been issued, nevertheless the refund claim is subject to the Provisions of Unjust Enrichment which requires to be reconsidered. 4. 8195 I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. On going through the reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the subsequent order with reference to the same facts and circumstances I do not find any justification for levy of service tax on transportation charges. Accordingly, party is entitled to refund of the said amount. Further in view of the submissions made by the DR, the position with reference to the unjust enrichment may be examined by the adjudicating authority. Thus these two appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

1 ....1819202122