Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2009 2009 (11) 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 481 to 500 of 735 Records

• 2009 (11) TMI 493
  

  Writ Court may intervene even at any interlocutory – Goods seized by dept. - automobile parts sold in the market without payment of excise duty – parts seized by the respondents from the premises of the petitioner-company are parts and components of earth removing machinery namely excavators and loaders which are not automobile parts – and not mentioned in CETA – Return the bank guarantee which the petitioner has furnished for securing a provisional release of the seized goods.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 491
  

  Purchased agricultural lands - acquired immediately - by the State Government - received compensation - assessees did not have any intention to hold the lands and to cultivate it -surplus received by the assessees, in respect of the lands purchased by the assessees and acquired by the State, is liable to be taxed as a business income, terming the said transaction as "adventure in the nature of trade", as defined under the provisions of section 2(13) of the said Act - interest received, during the years under consideration, on enhanced compensation, was liable to be treated as a business income and, therefore, liable to be taxed, as such, within the meaning of section 28 of the said Act – Held that: -the transactions, in question, were "adventure in the nature of trade" and as such, chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 489
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - issue involved is regarding service tax liability to the assessee on the storage and warehousing service - the amount has been confirmed on the advance received for which there was no service rendered by the assessee - There is no denial of the assessee that they have not provided the services or storage and warehousing charges – Held that: - we direct the appellant to pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 487
  

  Motor-vehicles - Testing agency required to certify not only the details of vehicle but also the seating capacity. Words "principally designed" used in heading 8702 or 8703 of Central Excise Tariff is applicable only to basic variants in view of clarification issued by Board. Clarification read with Tariff heading shows that it is not the number of persons the vehicle is capable of carrying that is relevant, it is actual number of passengers it can carry at the time of removal from the factory. Held that - thus vehicles classifiable under Heading 8703 and assessee are eligible for benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 486
  

  Penalty - This appeal arises from order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut, by allowing the respondents Appeal and the penalty of equal amount of duty imposed by the Additional Commissioner under its order dated 27th March, 2003 was modified and reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) having found that there was default in payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 3,77,778/-, had no discretion or option to modify the penalty and the same ought to have been in accordance with the provisions of law which require penalty equal to the duty amount. The order in that regard, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the penalty to be quantified to Rs. 3,77,778/- for the reasons stated above. Therefore, allow the appeal in the above terms and dismiss the cross-objections.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 485
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Diversion of cenvatted inputs - Acting upon intelligence report regarding alleged involvement of the respondents in evasion of excise duty by fraudulently availing the Modvat credit in relation to the raw materials allegedly diverted to the market investigation was carried out by the department which culminated in issuance of show cause notice to the respondents alleging that the respondents had illegally availed modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 4,08,71,796/-. Held that - mere tallying of numbers and dates of LRs and GRs in the statement of representative of manufacturer of inputs, dealers and transporters from manufacturer of inputs, itself will not be conclusive and satisfactory evidence about diversion of inputs. Absence of proper co-relation being established between inputs received and final product, which did not contain PFY element. Difficult to establish any cogent evidence in relation to charge. Revenues appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 481
  

  Revenue expenditure - Expenses on account of strategic management consultancy fee - revision u/s 263 - erroneous order - in view of ITAT the expenses on account of strategic management consultancy fee claimed as revenue expenditure is correct - A possible view of the matter thus was taken by the AO accepting the claim of the assessee on this issue while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) and we, therefore, agree with the contention of the ld Counsel of the assessee raised before us that it was not permissible for the ld. CIT u/s 263 to substitute such possible view taken by the AO with his own view merely on the basis of some comments made in the audit report which otherwise also were not conclusive in this regard. - Held that: There is no merit in the appeal - revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 479
  

  Reverse Charges - Assessee were subsidiaries of a foreign company. Service tax had been demanded from assessee on ground that they had paid management fees to parent company which was nothing but payment for management consultancy and, therefore as service receiver they were liable to pay service tax. Held that- in the light of the decision of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India 2009 -TMI - 32013 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, held that there was no liability on such service receiver prior to 18.04.2006.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 477
  

  Penalty - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in setting aside the personal penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 presently Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 despite the respondent having admitted to have knowingly concerned himself in the illicit and clandestine production, non accountal and removal of excisable goods and evasion of Central Excise duty and having admitted to the commission of the contravention and offences under the Act and the Rules on the directions of the Chairman cum Managing Director of the assessee? Held that - respondent only a excise clerk having four years service when alleged clandestine removal took place. Statement of respondent that he was acting as per instructions of managing director. Penalty imposed was ₹ 25,000/-. Case of present respondent distinguishable from that of MD. Question of law not formulated and appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 475
  

  Management, maintenance or repair service - The appellants are carrying out testing and repair of the cylinders received from their customers i.e., IOCL, HPCL, BPCL under a contract which is a contract for doing various activities. The entire activity will fall under the category of 'repair and maintenance services' which is taxable from 1-6-2007. Held that - assessee had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of amount confirmed in impugned order under said category.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 474
  

  Management maintenance and repair service - The appellants are carrying outtesting and repair of the cylinders received from their customers, i.e., IOCL, HPCL, BPCL under a contract which is a contract for doing various activities. Held that - activity would not get covered under definition of relevant period.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 473
  

  Outdoor caterer's services - the issue involved in this case is regarding the Service Tax liability on the supply of food to the Airlines by the respondent. Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of LSG Sky Chefs (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CST 2009 -TMI - 33134 - CESTAT BANGLORE, held that said activity will not fall under service tax activity. Held that - there is no interfere with the impugned order.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 471
  

  Courier Service - Assessee was engaged in providing courier service. In the said business, it had engaged several agent, called as franchises who were collecting service tax along with service charges from customers while accepting article. Service tax so collected were remitted to department by agent, on their own name after taking registration under category of courier service. Department demanded service tax from assessee under category of 'Franchise Service' on net amount retained by it out of charges collected for courier service after making payment to agents/franchisees. Held that - since agent/franchisees were not doing independent business but were only acting as agent for collection and delivery of parcel as agent in courier service and apart from appointing agents/franchisees, assessee was also not rendering any service to franchisees, demand of service tax from assessee under category of 'franchisee service' was not tenable.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 470
  

  Stay Order - Assessee was providing taxable servies of renting of cab by supplying vehicle on rent. On investigation, department found that assessee was indulging in evasion of service tax. Service tax demand confirmed on assessee along with interest and penalty. Held that - in the light of the plea of assessee for financial hardship, it was to be directed to deposit 25% of service tax amount.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 469
  

  Refund- Limitation and unjust enrichment - Revenue has come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-2-2006 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) deciding two refund claims of Rs. 45,65,419/- and Rs. 92,28,482/- relating to two different periods on the ground of limitation as well as bar of unjust enrichment. Revenue contending that refund claim hit by time limit as protest ended when order in appeal passed. Held that - Limitation begins when lis ends and time limit to be counted from 15.4.2005 when matter decided by Supreme Court. Impugned amount shown as receivables in accounts. Impugned order ruling out unjust enrichment sustainable. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 468
  

  Business Expenditure - Disallowance - The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure under section 92 and 40A(2) of the Act, on the ground that the price was higher than for similar goods purchased from local vendors. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions holding that the Assessing Officer had compared the price at which the goods were imported with the price of the goods in the local market in subsequent years. The Tribunal confirmed this. Held that - the entire expenditure was to be treated as revenue expenditure or 25 percent thereof could be capitalized, as held by the Tribunal. In either event, this entire expenditure could be treated as capital expenditure.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 467
  

  New Ground- This appeal filed by M/s. Information Technology Park of India Ltd (ITPI) seeks to vacate an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which sustained the order of the original authority rejecting their refund claim for an amount of Rs. 64,04,003/- paid by them in May 2006 and September 2006 towards Construction of Commercial Complex (CCC) service rendered by them. Held that - The order is non-speaking with reference to the proposals in the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) could not have validly sustained the said order; he supplemented the grounds for rejection of the claim without the appellants having been put on notice on such grounds. In the circumstances we vacate both the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter to the original authority for taking a fresh decision.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 465
  

  Penalty - The demands stands confirmed on the ground that the assessees were providing ‘rent a-cab’ operator service to M/s. Nuclear Power Corporation India Ltd. Held that - no prima facie case for total waiver has been made out by the assesse Rs., therefore, direct the assessees to deposit an amount of Rs. 60,000/-

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 463
  

  Cenvat Credit - the appellants had received welding electrodes and availed input credit under rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. These electrodes were used for repairing machinery within the factory. The demand is on the basis that the appellants had removed the inputs without reversing the credit availed. Held that - the inputs received were used for repair of the machinery installed in the factory of the appellants. It is not the revenue's case that the appellants had availed inadmissible credit. Find that the inputs were not removed outside the factory. In the circumstances, rule 3(5) could not be validly invoked. Accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 462
  

  Penalty- The return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 deduction was claimed in respect of contribution to the petition scheme for Rs. 13,82,078 and interest on penalty charges levied for excess consumption of electricity. However, on consideration of the return after issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and hearing the assessee, the assessment was completed disallowing the deduction. Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inadequate particular of income and imposed penalty but the Tribunal cancelled it. Held that- order passed by the Tribunal was perverse and arbitrary and could not be sustained.

  ---

1 ....212223242526272829........ 37