JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE,JAIPUR vs. M/S. J.K. UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD

The appeals are allowed with

disallowed the CENVAT Credit taken by the assessee, but did not impose any penalty. The assessee preferred an appeal, which

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN SPINN.& WEAVING MILLS LTD

disallowed the MODVAT credit amounting to Rs.1,16,650/- availed of by the assessee and imposed a penalty of Rs.2000

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,JALANDHAR vs. M/S KAY KAY INDUSTRIES

penalty. The adjudicating authority, after receipt of the reply to the show-cause notice, by order dated 22.3.2002, disallowed the deemed

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR vs. M/S. HIRA CEMENT

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the

disallowing the benefit of exemption notification No. 175/86 CE to noticee No. 1" However, in the said proceedings, penalties of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- were

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. PEARL DRINKS LTD

penalty as proposed in the SCN.” 7. It is noteworthy that the Board while passing the above order referred to the disallowance

M/S.L.R.BROTHERS,INDO FLORA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

penalty has been rightly imposed upon the appellant. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the adjudicating authority and therefore disallow

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. DISTILLERS CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with costs

penalty, he was not entitled to any deduction. It was further opined that even if the expenditure is deductible, in view of the fact that the amount in question had not been paid during the period relevant to the assessment year, the same had to be disallowed

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing officer against the assessee. In the assessment order, assessing officer made several disallowances

RAJA MECHANICAL CO.(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

Appeal is dismissed on

Bench: The Adjudicating Authority/Assessing Authority. However, The Said Declaration Was Not Filed Within The Time Prescribed Under The ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (For Short ‘The Act’) & The Rules Framed Thereunder. Accordingly, The Adjudicating Authority Had Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 11.10.1995 To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause As To Why The Modvat Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,47,000/-, Availed By It, Should Not Be Disallowed & Recovered Under Rule 57G Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (For Short ‘The Rules’) Read With Section 11A Of The Act And, Further Directed It To Show Cause As To Why Penalty Under Rule 173Q Of The Rules Should Not Be Imposed. Thereafter, A Corrigendum Dated 23.4.1997 To The Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause To The Assistant 2

disallowed and recovered under Rule 57G of the central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short ‘the Rules’) read with Section 11A of the Act and, further directed it to show cause as to why penalty

M/S. SARVESH REFRACTORIES (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs

disallowed the MODVAT credit to the appellant by observing that the said Heading 84.29 has been specifically ousted from the definition of "capital goods" under Rule 57Q of the Rules. The Dy. Commissioner also imposed a penalty

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

disallowing exemptions wrongly claimed. Thereafter, the recovery can be made by an order of the competent officer as per Second Schedule of the IT Act read with Sections 222 and 276 alongwith Sections 220 & 221 with interest and penalty

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Disallowed deduction U/s.24(1)  as per discussion  7200/­ 2. Additions in gross profit  10000/­ 3. Additions on the basis of less  Household expenses withdrawals 18000/­ 4. Unexplained credits as per discussions  226000/­  261200/­ Total taxable Income Tax          348700/­ Assessment was made. Necessary forms were issued. Notice be issued separately for imposition of penalty

MADRAS CEMENTS LTD., vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

disallowed and recovered under Rule 57U(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and why interest at the rate of 20% per annum should not be demanded under Rule 57U thereof, if the Modvat Credit wrongly availed was not paid within three months from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The Assessee was also asked to show cause

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the total income of the assessee has been assessed at a minus figure/loss? http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the judgments in Prithipal Singh’s case

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallow an assessee from claiming a tax benefit for its participation in an illegal activity. Though the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 1998 elucidated the ambit of Explanation 1 to include “protection money, extortion, hafta, bribes, etc.”, yet, ipso facto, by no means is the embargo envisaged restricted to those examples. It is but logical that when acceptance of freebies

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

penalty, - (i) \005 \005 (ii) \005 \005 (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than twenty per cent, but which shall not exceed one and a half times the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income