Recent - Case Laws
Income Tax - 2010 - TMI - 76540 - HC
Charitable Trust- The assessee, a society registered under section 12A of the Act, was engaged in the business of imparting professional training to probationers of the Central Accounts and Finance Services. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 11 on the ground that the assessee accumulated profits without providing any explanation. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the utilization of accumulation was on the agenda of the governing body, the purpose of expending for accumulation was for building fund and equipment fund and the period was less then 10 years. The Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Held that- dismiss the appeal, that when the assessee had specified the purpose and there was no fault in utilization of the amount, the assessee was entitled to accumulation of income.
Income Tax - 2010 - TMI - 76539 - HC
Recovery of Tax-Provisional attachment- (i) that the Deputy Director had conducted the search operation wherein a large number of incriminating documents and evidence regarding bogus credit entries were gathered and huge demand was likely to be raised under section 153A and 153C of the Act. The Deputy Director had expressed the apprehension and just to defer the payments of tax the assessee may transfer the properties and therefore, requested the Assessing Officer to attach the mentioned immovable properties to safeguard the interest of revenue. After the Assessing Officer received the letter, he passed the attachment order. However the search operation conducted by the Deputy Director of income tax and therefore, only he could bring the fact of the search to the notice of the Assessing Officer. When these bought to notice to the Assessing Officer, it was he who alone exercised discretion finding it to be fit case for attachment of property. The order of provisional attachment is valid. (ii) That the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax had addressed a letter dated July 24, 2009, to the Commissioner of Income Tax pointing out about the attachment orders passed by the Assessing officer with the prior approval of Commissioner of Income Tax. It was further mentioned in this communication that in many of the group cases, the order under section 127 of the Act were yet to be passed, the case record yet to be received, further notice is to be issued, inquiries, investigations to be made and thereafter assessment order could be passed. The request was, therefore, made for extension to the provisional attachment. On this, the Commissioner gave his approval. The extension of the order of provisional attachment was valid.
Income Tax - 2010 - TMI - 76538 - HC
Agricultural Income Tax (Tamil Nadu)- A tea estate was owned by a firm. A deed of dissolution of partnership was made. By this partition the land were divided by metes and bounds among the three individuals. The Agricultural Income Tax officer having jurisdiction over the land, assessed the income in the individual names of the assessee. Those assessment order were made apparently on the basis of an inspection. Thereafter, in terms of section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955, applications were filed for composition of agricultural income tax by the three individuals on the ground that their respective holding were less then 50 acres. Permission was granted. Subsequently, the Commissioner suo motu revised the assessment order on the ground that the entire stage managed by one single person and the profits were shared by all the three assessee and, therefore, they were to be termed an “association of person” accordingly they were not entitled to the benefit u/s 65. Held that- individual were not assessable as an association of person.
Central Excise - 2010 - TMI - 76537 - Tri
Penalty- suppression of insurance claim- The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods during the material period. Some time in July/August, 2005, machinery and materials in their factory suffered heavy damage due to floods of the monsoon. The appellant made an insurance claim and also intimated the above incident to the department. Later on, department issued a show-cause notice alleging inter alia that the appellant had suppressed the insurance claim and short-paid duty on their finished goods which were removed from their factory after the aforesaid incident. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty against the assessee to the extent of Rs. 6,75,126/-and imposed on them equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC. Against the order of adjudication, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who only sustained the decision of the lower authority. Hence the present appeal of the assessee. Held that- the department wanted to penalise the appellant under Rule 25. The authorities below, however, -chose to venture into the domain of Section 11AC, which was not warranted in this case. In this view of the matter, I should set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed.
Central Excise - 2010 - TMI - 76536 - Tri
SSI Exemption- brand name of another- The appellants states that the impugned goods which were supplied to a public sector undertaking, namely BSNL did not have any brand name/trade name. The appellant had a collaboration agreement with M/s Pouyet International, France but the appellants have not used brand/trade name of the appellant company. In the light of the decision of of CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkiwell Traders held that- All that has been used is only a part of the Indian company’s name to indicate the parts manufactured by them. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellants are not be disentitled to the small scale exemption. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the Order-in-Original. The appeals are allowed.
Customs - 2010 - TMI - 76535 - Tri
EXIM- Import of second hand goods- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue. The facts of the case are that the respondent, had imported secondhand Video Games and filed a Bill of Entry claiming that the goods are capital goods, which are freely importable as per Para 2.17 of the Exim Policy 2004-2009. The original adjudicating authority agreeing that those secondhand capital goods by referring to Paras 9.12, 9.52, 9.53 of the Chapter 9 of the Exim Policy 2004-2009 and held that though were imported against which no foreign exchange earning was there. Therefore, the goods were confiscated and in violation of Para 2.17 of the Exim Policy and redemption fine and penalty were imposed. Aggrieved from the same, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, who allowed the appeal holding that the goods are secondhand goods, which do not require any import licence and fine and penalty imposed on the respondents were dropped. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Held that- the impugned goods can be imported as capital goods under Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 without licence under Para 2.33 of the Handbook of Procedures 2002-07 and the DGFT Circular No. 16 dated 29-9-2003. Further, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Central Excise - 2010 - TMI - 76534 - Tri
Manufacture- the Adjudicating Authority to decide whether the process of cold rolling of hot-rolled products amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This issue was decided against the assessee by the Adjudicating Authority in the de novo proceeding and similar is the consequence by First Appellate Order. Therefore, the assessee’s second round of litigation was with the grievance that the order of adjudication was beyond jurisdiction clearly holding that the process of cold rolling of hot-rolled products amounts to manufacture. Held that- If there is no liability at any stage of manufacture, appellant-assessee should not be demanded the duty. While directing so, we also keep in mind that Revenue has not gone in appeal against the order of adjudication allowed by the ld. Adjudicating Authority. In absence of appeal by Revenue, the relief granted by lower authority cannot be denied. Therefore, the assessee should get relief granted by lower appellate authority. With aforesaid direction and decision, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee except to the extent it is held that the process carried out by the appellant-assessee amounts to manufacture. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed except to the extent indicated above.
Customs - 2010 - TMI - 76533 - Tri
Suspension of CHA Licence- Suspension of CHA licence. Firm already closed for about 2 years. Submission that appeal relating to year 2002-2003 coming up for final hearing, therefore it will take year for appeal to come up in normal course and firm will remain closed for all that period if early hearing not granted. Tribunal not rendering final decision on quantum of punishment, only application for early hearing being considered. If quantum of punishment, only application for early hearing being considered. If quantum of punishment happens to be disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed, delay in hearing may not be justifiable. Early hearing allowed without going into merits.
Central Excise - 2010 - TMI - 76532 - Tri
Valuation- The appellants are the manufacturers of Biscuits falling under Sub-heading No. 1905.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In April, 1980, the appellants filed price lists claiming deduction of secondary packing, selling expenses and freight from their sale price, for determination of assessable value. As these deductions were not accepted by the Department, the appellants have started paying duty provisionally from 25-4-1980 on the assessable values claimed by them in terms of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Having failed to get the desired deductions on account of post-manufacturing expenses from the Department, the appellants have filed a W.P. No. 9270/81 in the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, requesting the Hon’ble Court to issue an order directing the Department to approve the price lists as filed by them. Held that- the lower authorities have erred in not following the direction of the Tribunal. In view of this we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
CAclubindia
