Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (8) 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 461 to 468 of 468 Records

• 2003 (8) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Perquisite - "Whether, Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision that conveyance allowance granted by the assessee to its employees was not a perquisite under section 17(2), and consequently directing the Assessing Officer to revise the demand created in respect of short payment of TDS and interest thereon?" - Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, has filed the instant application, seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court - The conveyance allowance is in the nature of compensatory allowance and, therefore, is not a perquisite. – no infirmity in tribunal’s order - we decline to direct the Tribunal, to refer the aforesaid question to this court – appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Benefits under the amnesty circular -Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that no full disclosure was made and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefits under the amnesty circulars - whether an assessee in whose premises a search was conducted by the departmental officers will not be entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme - held that the amnesty scheme was introduced for the benefit of the taxpayers as well as for the benefit of the Revenue and that the scheme cannot be construed in a narrower fashion as to deprive the assessee of its benefit, simply because he was subjected to search, notwithstanding that there was no detection of any concealment - We therefore, remit the case to the Tribunal to find out whether the search did yield any result in favour of the Revenue

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 6 - SC ORDER
  

  High Court was right in holding that the show cause notice issued was too vague and did not disclose the reasons thereof nor the material considered by the appropriate authority in reaching a tentative conclusion was disclosed and, therefore, the whole proceedings stood vitiated and thereby quashed the said notice

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 5 - CESTAT (KOLKATA)
  

  Service Tax –(1) Appellants unaware of levy of tax on service of advertisement and not collect service tax from their clients (2) Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ST (3) Late filing of ST return

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 4 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Service Tax – Clearing and Forwarding agents (1) Failure to pay service tax (2) Levy of service tax for the C & F agents was revalidated with retrospective effect (3) Penalty not imposable

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Service Tax – Contract Carriage Vehicles

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... herefore, there will be no question of entertaining their objections and they will straightaway be covered under Section 65(52) of the Finance Act.... 9. In the light of the conclusion/observation of the Division Bench, I am of the view that as per Section 65(52) of the Finance Act and as interpreted by the Division Bench, the contract carriage vehicles are also covered under service tax. Since the petitioner is covered under the definition of tour operator and doing the said business, the respondent is fully justified in issuing the impugned communication requesting the petitioner to register and pay service tax. I am also satisfied that the issue is already settled in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, referred to above and I hold that the petitioner herein is liable to pay the service tax. 10. In the light of what is stated above, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 2 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – (1) Demand (2) Penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion now arising for consideration is whether the concealment of data was for evading payment of tax. When the statute required payment of tax on gross value of services, the tax could be paid on that basis only. Nevertheless, it also requires to be considered that the assessee maintained a conviction that service tax was payable on service charges only, that is why they moved the High Court. This circumstance should have been considered by the lower appellate authority while quantifying the penalty. The limit prescribed by the statute is the maximum limit. It has been held by this Tribunal that a lower amount of penalty may be imposed in the circumstances of the particular case. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, I reduce the penalties imposed on the party in relation to the periods 16-10-98 to 31-3-99 and 1-4-99 to 30-9-99 to Rs. 1.5 lakh each. 6. The appeals are allowed to the above extent, with consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 1 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Service Tax – Mandap Keeper – Religious functions which are considered as sanctified and sacrament under Hindu Law

  ---

1 ....2021222324