|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 321
Modvat - Capital Goods ... ... ... ... ..... respect of these two items does not arise. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Larsen and Toubro v. C.C.E. as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 131 and that of the C.C.E. v. Hydro S and S Industries reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 421 and also in the case of AVI Photochem Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 439 which deals with these items. 6. emsp We have considered the submissions and we notice that the both the authorities had examined the issue in the light of the various decisions and found that the both the above mentioned items are necessary for the manufacture of the final product. They have examined the Tribunal judgments which are binding on the authorities. We have examined the issue in the light of the various rulings rendered as noted above and we notice that the issue is settled in favour of the respondents and there is no need for interfering with the orders passed by the lower authorities. There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 320
Appeal by department - Grounds ... ... ... ... ..... being contrary to the law, the clarification was not binding on the Courts and quasi-judicial authorities. 5. emsp Reliance was also placed on other judgment of the Tribunal reportedly giving a ratio in favour of the revenue. One of the cited cases is of Kusum Products 1990 (48) E.L.T. 50 . He find that the Madras High Court has taken cognizance of these judgment and has not found favour therewith. The same is the case of the citation in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. Collector 1992 (57) E.L.T. 152 which was taken into account by the Tribunal in the Ashwin Vanaspati Inds. (Pvt.) Ltd. Judgment. 6. emsp On certain other grounds an attempt has been made to distinguish the facts from those which were before the Madras High Court in those submission. We find nothing here to assist revenue. 7. emsp We find that the order of the Commissioner was based on the law as laid down by the High Court and by the Tribunal. The order sustains. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 319
Settlement Commission - Powers of - Penalty and prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... 996 6-9-1999 32 months 25 days 58255 16-12-1996 7 3313/74, 75 4,25,968/- 23-12-1996 6-9-1999 32 months and 23 days 116276 16-12-1996 8 3449/58, 59 4,25,968/- 23-12-1996 6-9-1999 32 months and 23 days 116276 26-12-1996 9 3449/31 2,12,984/- 23-12-1996 11-6-1999 32 months and 23 days 58138 26-12-1996 10 3592/25, 26 2,78,808/- 15-1-1997 6-9-1999 31 months and 21 days 73630 17-1-1997 11 3592/27, 28 2,78,808/- 15-1-1997 6-9-1999 31 months and 21 days 73630 17-1-1997 12 3592/22, 23, 24 13,93,012/- 22-1-1997 22-6-1999 6-9-1999 29 months 31 months/15 days 29915 333170 25-1-1997 13 1398/17, 18 4,50,241/- 26-5-1997 6-9-1999 27 months 11 days 102661 27-5-1997 14 1837/165, 166, 167 5,32,350/- 14-1-1997 16-6-1999 29 months 2 days 128943 15-1-1997 15 1986/6, 7 4,59,950/- 23-7-1997 16-6-1999 22 months and 23 days 87222 24-7-1997 16 1986/2 7,300/- 23-7-1997 16-6-1999 22 months and 23 days 1384 24-7-1997 TOTAL 79,56,383/- emsp emsp emsp emsp 20,50,402/- emsp emsp GRAND TOTAL - Rs. 23,00,026/-
-
2001 (3) TMI 306
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... d upon by both the sides have to be considered in detail before arriving at any conclusion and this can be done only at the time of regular hearing. However, the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty in view of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 755/98-D, dated 24-9-1998 in their own case CCE v. Nestle India Ltd. has rejected the appeal of the Revenue for treating barrel as unit container. Further the fact that they had stopped paying the duty after the order was passed by the Collector (Appeal) goes in their favour as far as the question of invoking the extended period of time-limit is concerned. Accordingly, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants. We, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit and of stay the recovery of the entire amount of duty and penalty during the pendency of the Appeal. The matters will come up for final hearing in due course.
-
2001 (3) TMI 305
Cement intended to be used for earthquake relief ... ... ... ... ..... goods are charged by a manufacturer) to be lsquo duty exempted rsquo even if such supply is lsquo ex-ware house rsquo which in the facts of this case, to our mind cannot be restricted to a lsquo warehouse rsquo as defined under Rule 2 (XV) to be only appointed place, registered only under Rule 140 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 it would include a lsquo Depot rsquo or wherever excise paid goods are stored by a manufacturer after clearance. In this case, the goods have been supplied directly not from the factory of ACC Ltd., Wadi supplied ex-depot in Maharashtra directly to the recognised Relief Agency and used for earthquake relief. Therefore, we find no merit in the second objection found by the Commissioner (Appeals) to deny the refund, when we find that refund as per the law could be claimed by lsquo any person rsquo who has suffered the duty. 6. emsp In view of our findings, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential benefit.
-
2001 (3) TMI 304
Anti-dumping - Normal value ... ... ... ... ..... less pipes/tubes as described in the above para All types of Seamless Pipes as per above para 1001 Austria All exporters of all categories of seamless pipes/tubes as described in the above para All types of Seamless Pipes as per above para 1001 Czech Republic All exporters of all categories of seamless pipes/tubes as described in the above para All types of Seamless Pipes as per above para 1001 Ukraine All exporters of all categories of All types of Seamless Pipes as per above Nil on account of no imports or de-minimis seamless pipes/tubes as described in the above para para imports as per DGCIS data. 10. emsp The anti-dumping duty as given in the table above should be the duty realisable by the Central Govt. In other words the table attached to Notification No. 91/2000 dated 21-6-2000 should stand modified as above. We order accordingly and amend the above notification. Appeals are thus disposed of modifying the impugned notification in accordance with the table given above.
-
2001 (3) TMI 303
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... in order and no objection had been raised right from 1986 onward, even by audit parties. All the facts were thus known to the proper officers and nothing has been suppressed, concealed or mis-stated with intent to evade payment of duty. The short levy alleged in the show cause notice could not be taken as due to the reasons of fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression of facts. Neither the extended period contemplated under Section 11A(1) proviso, was applicable nor penalty could be imposed under Rule 173Q of the said Rules on the appellant. The learned Collector has wrongly applied the said proviso to this case. The Price Lists Classification Lists, RT-12 returns had properly been approved after proper verification. The order-in-original being contrary to the facts on records merits to be set aside. rdquo We, therefore, find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record of the Final Order and as such the Application for rectification of mistake is rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 294
... ...
... ... ..... o. 7 reads as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the sum of Rs. 27,924 on the ground that the payment of the sum was made after the end of the year. 27. This ground is against the addition of Rs. 27,824, the facts about which have been discussed in the preceding paras. The addition has been deleted by the CIT(A) with the following remarks I have considered the contentions of the appellant. The AO himself has observed on facts that the payment of the sum of Rs. 28,824 was made after the end of the year. Therefore, he was not justified in making the above addition to the income of the year under consideration. The same is therefore, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 27,824 in respect of this ground. 28. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the above remarks of the CIT(A) and accordingly decline to interfere. This ground also fails and is dismissed. 29. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 293
... ...
... ... ..... sary. In Black rsquo s Dictionary, the word lsquo detection rsquo has several meanings. One of them is lsquo investigation rsquo . The other is to follow step by step by cogent enquiry or observation. In the present case, even though a diary was seized during the course of search, there was neither any investigation by the AO nor there was any action to follow step by step by cogent enquiry. The seized diary remained in the custody of the Department for three years and the assessee inspected the diary and on the basis of entries made in the diary, he came up voluntarily with the revised returns. There was no concealment of any fact on the part of the assessee because the diary and books of account were in the possession of the Department. Under the circumstances, the charge of concealment cannot be attributed to the assessee. 9. In the light of above discussion, we see no justification for the impugned penalties and delete the same. 10. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 292
... ...
... ... ..... .L. Trivedi and Sons (1993) 115 CTR (Guj) 535, the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply to income-tax proceedings and by non-deduction of TDS in time which attracts interest under s. 201(1A) and penalty under s. 271C, the assessee cannot claim concession/benefit in regard to default attracting penalty under ss. 272A(2)(c) and 272A(2)(g). Thus, non-deduction of TDS or delay in depositing TDS to Government account can certainly not be taken as reasonable cause for not filing returns. Accordingly, I reverse the findings of the CIT(A) and restore those of the AO. These appeals are accordingly allowed. 14. In the results, the appeals are allowed. ITAs Nos. 913 to 915/Pn/1998 15. These appeals relate to penalties under s. 271C which have been cancelled by the CIT(A) consequent to his own order in appeals Nos. 907 to 909/Pn/1998. These appeals are also allowed for the reasons given in my order relating to ITA Nos. 907 to 909/Pn/1998. 16. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 285
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... t, it was only because the assessee did not want to litigate further, but it is not as if that even though he did not dispute the point in the assessment that he could not dispute it again in the penalty proceedings as held by us supra that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. 23. As regards the difference in valuation of the building, the CIT(A) has rightly pointed out that the ultimate difference was of Rs. 85,551 and this was much less than 10 per cent of the cost shown by the assessee. In these circumstances, increase in the value cannot be attributed to any concealment but such difference can arise on account of honest difference of opinion and, accordingly, we hold that no penalty was leviable in respect of that item. 24. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that there is no justification for the impugned penalty and the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. We accordingly decline to interfere. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 284
Double Taxation Agreement With France, Income, Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India. ... ... ... ... ..... shing of know-how in the form of drawings and designs consideration for which may be described as Royalty. In the case before us, the facts are closer to the High Court decision and in fact much stronger. Further the drawings and designs in that case were relating to erection of a galvanising plant which could be termed as right to use models, plans or designs and the technical information or experiences related to such designs and documentation. On the contrary, the very same Delhi Bench considered a case much similar to that of the assessee in DCM Ltd. v. ITO 1988 31 TTJ Delhi 171 where payment made to carry out certain study (as in the assessee s case also) was considered as payment for technical services and in the nature of technical fees. 12. In the light of above discussion, we reverse the findings of the authorities below and hold that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 195(2) of the Act. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 281
Return Of Income, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ire facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, we are of the view that the impugned notice cannot be said in conformity with or according to the intent or purpose of the Act. In fact, it is a case of failure to issue notice under section 148 on the right entity of two persons which has rendered the entire proceedings as null and void. Even otherwise, the defects pointed out are vital which goes to the root of the matter and cannot be saved by recourse to the provisions of section 292B as held by Kerala High Court in the case of P.N. Sasikumar and clarified by the Board in circular No. 179 dated 30-9-1975. The case law referred to by the ld. D.R. are not directly on the point before us and are distinguishable on facts. 16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find merit in the arguments put forth on behalf of the revenue. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal dated 5-7-2000. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 280
Issues involved: Determination of whether the assessee is a Leasing Company or a Finance Company liable to Interest-tax.
Summary:
The appeal raised the issue of whether the assessee was a Leasing Company or a Finance Company liable to Interest-tax. The assessee, classified by the Reserve Bank of India as an 'Equipment Leasing Company', contended that it was primarily engaged in leasing activities and not in providing finances. The Assessing Officer, however, concluded that the assessee was a "Loan Company" based on interest earned on loans and advances. The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, emphasizing that the principal business was leasing, supported by the composition of income and RBI's classification. The ITAT Pune analyzed the income bifurcation and RBI's clarification, determining that leasing constituted over 72% of the total income, thus affirming the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was a Leasing Company and not liable to Interest-tax.
The ITAT Pune rejected the Revenue's argument that leasing activities also constitute financing, citing specific Circulars that differentiate between hire purchase and leasing transactions. It highlighted that ownership of equipment is crucial, and in the case of the assessee, the company retained ownership, distinguishing it from a loan transaction. The ITAT Pune also noted that the Assessing Officer had acknowledged the assessee as a leasing company during assessment under section 143(3), further supporting the conclusion that the assessee was not a loan company but a leasing company. Consequently, the ITAT Pune upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was not liable to Interest-tax, dismissing the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 273
... ...
... ... ..... ting to revive the business because the assessee had shown a sale of Rs. 11,300 in subsequent year 1994-95. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the first appellate authority that there was only a temporary full in the business and as such the assessee was entitled to set off the current loss from the business against the current income from the profession. Since we have considered that there was loss from the business during the relevant assessment years and as sections 28 and 70 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as discussed above entitle the assessee to set off the business loss against the income from profession, we do not find any necessity to discuss the catena of case laws relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative and the assessee s learned Counsel. 12. In view of the observations above in the fight of the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to uphold the order of the first appellate authority. The Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 271
Doctrine Of Share Decisis ... ... ... ... ..... urt after duly discussing the decision in the case of New Sherrock Spinning and Mfg. Co. besides Ballimal Navalkishore. The ratio decidendi of all these decisions clearly supports the stand of the assessee and it sustained the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the similar set of facts and circumstances. 9.26. Thus on the totality of the facts and the entirety of the circumstances of the instant case and in the light of the several provisions of law, case laws discussed above, we are unable to sustain the defence of the Revenue in spite of its vehement and laudable efforts taken for our appreciating the stand. We are also of the opinion that for the reasons furnished in the aforesaid discussion, there is no compelling necessity for us also to reconsider the decision taken by us on the question of replacement of textile machinery in the case of Nagammal Mills Ltd. which squarely applies to the instant case too. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed hereby.
-
2001 (3) TMI 270
Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... re, the expenses other than what the assessee had capitalised, are clearly relatable to the earning of interest and for its normal functioning to comply with the requirements under the Companies Act, IT Act and other statutes. The assessability of the income under s. 56 is also not in dispute and as observed above, the assessee is seeking deduction of certain expenses. The claim of the assessee, in our opinion, is allowable because the expenses have been partly incurred in the normal course with the setting up of the needles manufacturing unit. The expenses relatable to the new unit have been identified and have been capitalised. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow deduction of the expenses as claimed by the assessee. 5. The other issue, which is consequential, namely, levy of interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the Act, in our opinion, can be considered in the light of our above directions while giving effect to this order. 6. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 265
Deduction Of Tax At Source, Interest Other Than Interest On Securities ... ... ... ... ..... Bank on 27-2-1990 in the following sums 1986-87 Rs. 42,281 1987-88 Rs. 19,755 The fact that the assessee had paid the amount into the treasury as detailed above could drive us to the inference that the assessee had impliedly accepted the theory that even though the interest was credited to interest payable account the assessee was liable to deduct at source as per section 194A. Hence we direct the Assessing Officer to levy interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act on the sums of Rs. 42,905 and Rs. 20,596 being 10 of Rs. 4,29,050 and Rs. 2,05,959.58 for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively from the date of credit to the interest payable account till 27-2-1990, being the date of payment of the tax deducted at source into the Indian overseas Bank. Thus these appeals of the revenue are partly allowed. 9. In the result the appeal for the assessment year 1985-86 is dismissed and the appeals for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 are partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 263
Failure To Get Accounts Audited ... ... ... ... ..... nother penalty notice under s. 271B r/w s. 274. After examining these facts, the Bench observed that the AO was under a legal obligation to complete the penalty within the time allowed under s. 275. According to the Bench, the first notice was to culminate by passing an order under s. 271B within the time allowed under s. 275(1)(c). In the case before us also, the penalty order was not completed within the time allowed under s. 275. The period of limitation, which started from the notice dt. 27th March, 1990 was, therefore, to end within the financial year or within six months from the end of March, 1990. Thus, this ground taken by the assessee in the cross-objection deserves to be allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed. Additional ground taken in the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed. Since the penalty order cannot be sustained on the grounds mentioned in para 14 of this order. The penalty imposed under that orders shall stand cancelled.
-
2001 (3) TMI 261
Charitable Or Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... tion from Income Tax under section 11 of the Act. 54. As we have accepted the alternative plea of the assessee, we further hold that since the properties were held under a legal obligation, i.e., the maintenance of temples and deities etc. which was a public charitable purpose, on that basis also and in view of Explanation 1 to section 13 of the Income Tax Act, the income derived from the properties is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 55. In view of the above discussion, all the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. IT Appeal Nos. 881, 882, 883, 884 and 885 (All.) of 1997 56. As the facts of these appeals are identical to IT Appeal No. 880 (All.)/ 1997 and as identical grounds have been taken in all these appeals, following our findings in that appeal (IT Appeal No. 880(A)/1997) and assigning the same reasons, we allow all these appeals. 57. In the result, all the six appeals are allowed.
............
|
9911796707
