Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 781 Records
-
2007 (3) TMI 774 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... sible and obliged under the contract to provide the taxable service. In the present case, the taxable services are maintenance and repair. The whole of those services are the contractual obligation of the appellant and appellant is responsible for them to HAL. Thus, there is no contract and sub-contract in the present case. That the beneficiary of the service is someone other than the purchaser of the service is altogether irrelevant. 8. In the above factual and legal situation, we find no merit in the present appeals in as far as they relate to the tax demand on the appellant and the appellant's claim for refund. However, given the nature of the dispute and the fact that all relevant facts remained disclosed to the revenue authorities, penalty is not justified. Accordingly, tax demand is confirmed and refund claim rejected. Penalty is also set aside. 9. Both the appeals are ordered accordingly. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the court at the end of hearing.)
-
2007 (3) TMI 773 - SC ORDER
... ... ... ... ..... oned. Admitted. Tag on with Civil Appeal No. 4584/2005.
-
2007 (3) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ted in its books, credit for the TDS deducted from the said interest should be allowed to the assessee." 13. The assessee has claimed credit for TDS in the hands of Malibu Estate Joint Ventures though the relevant TDS certificates were issued in the name of MEPL. Since the income of the project has been held to be assessable in the hands of the assessee, i.e., Malibu Estate Joint Venture and it is a settled position that credit for TDS is to be given in the case of the assessee and that too in the year in which the corresponding income is taxed. 14. It may be pointed out that similar relief was allowed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 1996-97 and the revenue did not prefer any appeal. 15. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in answering the question (b) in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 16. As such both the appeals filed by revenue are hereby dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 771 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... on under section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal on 30-3-2005 in which it was mentioned that there were certain errors in the order dated 14-6-2004 and that those errors need rectification. 6. The rectification application filed by the assessee was argued and dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 9-6-2006. The Tribunal was of the view that there were no errors apparent from the record and that rectification was not possible without re-hearing and re-adjudicating the entire subject-matter of the appeal. In other words, the contents of the application went well beyond the powers conferred on the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act. 7. We are of the opinion that on these facts, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Moreover, it is seen that the rectification application was filed by the assessee after the decision taken by this Court dismissing the appeal of the assessee under section 260A of the Act. 8. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 770 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ... ... ... ..... nnotations and it means by money advanced to any person. The object and purpose of the Act is to levy tax on interest income earned on loans and advances. Further, the scope of the definition under sec.2(7) is also enlarged as it includes interest not only on loans but also on advances. There is no specific provision in the Act which grands exemption in respect of interest on inter-corporate deposits. Hence, interest tax was leviable on the interest income earned by the Assessee on inter-corporate deposits." Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the above case, we allow the ground taken by the Revenue. 49. In the result, the Assessee's appeal in ITA No.747/M/05 is allowed for statistical purpose, ITA No.2398/M/03 and 854/M/05 are partly allowed for statistical purpose ITA No.748/M/05 is partly allowed, ITA No.853/M/05 is dismissed and Int.T.A. Nos.118/M/03 and 08/M/04 are allowed and the Revenue's appeals in Int. TA No.11/M/04 is allowed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 769 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ging to the appellant were not included. It was, therefore, submitted before us that in any view of the matter the acquisition proceedings in relation to those 3 khasra numbers must lapse. This was indeed not contested by the respondents. However, in view of the fact that we have reached the conclusion that the acquisition proceeding as against the lands of the appellant lapsed for failure to make an award within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act, this aspect of the matter lose its significance. In the result Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6093/2003; 6384/2003 and 8574 of 2003 are dismissed. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP) No. 6095 of 2003 is allowed and it is declared that the award made by the Collector on March 1, 2003 was barred by limitation prescribed by Section 11A of the Act and as such the acquisition proceeding in relation thereto lapsed on February 18, 2003, which was the last date for making the award. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 768 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
... ... ... ... ..... authority, the matter certainly requires consideration on the light of provisions contained in section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with paragraph 8 of the larger Bench decision as aforesaid. 6) In the result, the matter is set aside to the appellate authority below to come to a conclusion whether there was existence of any reasonable cause to arrive at a decision that no penalty is warranted under section 76 and such a decision is to be dealt in the light of provisions contained in Section 80. It is needless to mention that Section 80 is overriding section and has primacy over section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellate authority while deciding the matter shall offer fair opportunity to the Respondent to state the cause/ reason which prevented them to comply to the provision of section 76 and consider the reasons so stated to satisfy mandate of section 80 for appropriate decision. The impugned order is thus set aside by way of remand and Revenue succeeds partly.
-
2007 (3) TMI 767 - SC ORDER
... ... ... ... ..... .../2005. We also want the Tribunal to record its findings regarding the net worth of the company. If the net worth of the company is found to be negative, then the Tribunal will consider restoration of the appeal to its file and in which event the matter will have to be decided on merits. If, however, the net worth is found to be a positive figure, the Tribunal will say so, give its reasons and dispose of the modification application in accordance with law. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (3) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... e liability had already arisen before the repeal of Section 3A, it would not be wiped out, on the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills case (supra). 4. In view of the conflicting views appearing in the decisions of the Division Bench of the Tribunal and the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the matter is required to be referred to a Division Bench for deciding whether the decision in Mitra Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Kundil Alloys Pvt. Ltd., rendered by the Division Bench and followed in the subsequent decisions of the Single Member Bench was required to be reconsidered in view of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra). The papers of these matters, may therefore, be placed before the President for placing the matters before a Division Bench for disposal. Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2007 (3) TMI 765 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority levying penalty under section 76 as also under section 78 of the Finance Act. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). o p /o p 3. Duty liability is not being disputed by the appellant. In fact it is their case that the appellants having deposited the entire amount of duty along with interest and 25 per cent of the penalty amount imposed under section 78, the balance penalties imposed under the said section 76 should be set aside. I find that as contested by ld. advocate the dispute relates to the initial periods of the levy of service tax and there was confusion in the industry. By taking said factor and the fact that the duty stands deposited along with interest and the fact that 25 per cent of penalty has already been deposited and is not being disputed, I set aside the balance amount of penalties imposed on all the three appellants. Appeals are disposed off in above terms. o p /o p
-
2007 (3) TMI 764 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... 2004 and deposits the service tax along with interest, no penalty is to be imposed upon him. However, Commissioner (Appeals) did not apply the provision of the above scheme on the ground that the appellants were registered prior to the introduction of the scheme and as such will not be covered by the same. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that an identical plea was taken by the revenue before the tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services and Workers Contractor reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 703 (Tri.-Del.) 2005 (188) E.L.T. 454 (Tri. - Delhi). The same was rejected by the Tribunal, holding that the assessee having paid service tax along with interest prior to 30-10-2004 is not liable for penalty. Accordingly, in view of the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order passed by the original adjudicating authority. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (3) TMI 763 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... imposition of penalty. 3. During adjudication and appeal proceedings, appellant relied upon the Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme, laying down where tax and penalty interest is paid before 30-10-04, there would be no levy of penalty. However, the benefit of said scheme has not been extended to the appellant on the ground that tax was deposited before the scheme was announced. 4. I find that in the case of CCE Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services & Workers Cont. reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 703 (Tribunal) 2005 (188) E.L.T. 454 (Tri-Del.), Tribunal rejected identical plea of DR and held that the provisions of scheme would apply to all assessees. In as much as in the present case, duty and interest was deposited before 30-10-04, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. The same is accordingly set aside and appeal allowed to that extent with consequential relief to the appellant. 5. Stay petition also gets disposed off. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (3) TMI 762 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ... ... ... ..... s of section 78, were not present in this case. It appears there were reasonable cause on the part of the respondent to discharge the service tax liability belatedly but there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. 4. Considering the fact that the firm is a professional firm, imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,43,052.40 shall still be hardship. Penalty is not prescribed for mechanical levy because law permits such a levy as held the Apex Court in the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1978 (2) ELT J159 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals 1998 (99) ELT 33. For such reason, section 80 has made provision to consider reasonable cause before imposition of penalty. There is no case by revenue proving intention of respondents to evade. Therefore, levy of any penalty on the respondent would be unreasonable hardship which calls for waiver. 5. Appeal of revenue is accordingly dismissed modifying the first appeal order in the manner indicated above.
-
2007 (3) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... on for restoration the reasons for non appearance at the time when the matter was taken up had been indicated. It was noted that the matter was fixed for filing of the vakalatnama of the respondents. There was unintentional absence and the reason for the same was indicated. The High Court has not found the reason indicated to be in any manner incorrect or untrue. Merely because the appeal has been dismissed on merits that could not have been a ground to refuse restoration of the appeal. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant the reason for non appearance when the matter was taken up had been indicated. There is no dispute that the factual scenario as projected by the appellant was the correct one. Mere fact that the appeal was dismissed on merits could not have been a ground to refuse restoration. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct restoration of the Second Appeal. The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to
-
2007 (3) TMI 760 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ation under Section 6, and not any subsequent corrigendum to the said declaration. The only circumstance under which the period between the declaration under Section 6 and the award can be extended is mentioned in the explanation to Section 11A which states In computing the period of two years referred to in Section 11A, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court is excluded. There is no mention in Section 11A that the period after the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the publication of any corrigendum to the said declaration has also to be excluded. We will be adding words to the statute if we put such interpretation to Section 11A, and it is well settled the Court should not add or delete words in a statute. ( 4. ) IN view of the above reasons this appeal is allowed. The impugned award is quashed. The impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 759 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Petition had already installed the two photo copy machines in the office of the respondents. One machine has got the electric connection, however, the second machine is not having the electric connection. 16. Thus, the Department of Revenue may provide the electric connection so far as the second photo copy machine is concerned, and they may be permitted to have the photo copies of all the relied upon documents. The exercise may be completed within the period of three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him. 17. The Department of Revenue may re-consider to modify the letter dated 8th February, 2007 to complete the adjudication considering the fact that the petitioner may not be in a position to render the proper assistance for assessment without having copies of the relied upon documents and extend the period. 18. Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appeared for the respondents with Shri Dinesh Kumar Soni, Advocate.
-
2007 (3) TMI 758 - SC ORDER
... ... ... ... ..... ts we see no reason to interfere in this matter. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 757 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... judged is to be found in those reasons through which the AO discloses his mind. To travel beyond the territory of reasons recorded and material specified therein would be to substitute the satisfaction of Court for that of AO, which is not permissible. 28. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that the satisfaction about escapement of income for asst. yr. 1986-87 was founded without any relevant material going into consideration of the AO and the material which has been stated in the reasons recorded by the AO does not connect any existing material which could relate to the assessment year in question having nexus for formation of belief by him that income for asst. yr. 1986-87 has escaped assessment. Significantly, the AO has also not recorded his satisfaction that underestimate was due to any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose his income for relevant assessment year in question. 29. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 756 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... final decree for redemption. Defendant No.1, the mortgagee and now his legal representatives shall execute a deed of redemption or reconveyance as required under law in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of the amounts due under the two decrees as fixed by the trial court. If the plaintiff has not deposited the amounts, he will deposit the same within three months from this date with notice to the mortgagee. All defendants in both the suits would jointly and severally vacate the suit properties and shall hand over vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff within four months from the date of this judgment. If the defendants fail to do so, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the properties in execution of this decree without any objection or obstruction from them. For the purposes of execution, the decree would be treated as a composite decree. We thus allow the appeals. The parties would suffer their respective costs in the circumstances of the case.
-
2007 (3) TMI 755 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... the same family and there was interconnectivity amongst them in the sense of money transaction, and that there was a common management and that all the four units were carrying on the business of Hire Purchase and that all the four firms were situated in the same premises under one roof, and therefore, there was not only a unity of ownership but also unity of management and functional " integrality". The Commissioner consequently found that all the four units should be clubbed together for the purpose of coverage under the provisions of the Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact given by the Provident Fund Commissioner which has not been disputed, the mere fact that the petitioner is a partnership firm and other three units are limited Companies is by itself insufficient to take the units outside the coverage under Section 2A of the Act. 14. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
........
|