Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • 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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 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
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on CENVAT credit, penalties, and assessment orders.

        ACIT, CC-1(1), Ahmedabad Versus Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd.

        ACIT, CC-1(1), Ahmedabad Versus Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Treatment of unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT credit.
        2. Legality of assessment orders passed under section 153A.
        3. Deletion of penalties related to various disallowances and deductions.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Treatment of Unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT Credit:
        The revenue filed appeals for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07, challenging the deletion of additions made on account of unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT credit. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not upholding the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had followed the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Unique Industries and CIT Vs Ideal Sheet Metal Stamping & Pressing Pvt. Ltd., as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue was fully covered in favor of the assessee by these judgments. The basis was that when purchases are accounted for net of excise duty paid, the MODVAT/CENVAT credit received is already included in the profits by way of reduction in purchase price, and thus, cannot be added again. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeals for these years.

        2. Legality of Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153A:
        The assessee filed cross objections for the same assessment years, challenging the legality of assessment orders passed under section 153A read with section 143(3). The assessee argued that the assessments were illegal, without jurisdiction, and against the scheme of the Act as no satisfaction was recorded before the search. Furthermore, the assessee contended that the assessments should be restricted to materials and evidences indicating undisclosed income found during the search. Since none of the additions were based on search material, the orders should be quashed. However, the Tribunal noted that these cross objections were mainly in support of the CIT(A)'s order. Since the revenue's appeals were dismissed on merit, the cross objections were dismissed as infructuous.

        3. Deletion of Penalties Related to Various Disallowances and Deductions:
        The revenue also appealed against the deletion of penalties for the assessment year 2005-06. The penalties were related to four disallowances: excess claim of depreciation, disallowance of deduction under section 10B for the Cotton Yarn Division, disallowance of deduction under section 10B for the Kadi Unit, and disallowance of carry forward unabsorbed depreciation.

        - Excess Claim of Depreciation: The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by referencing the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Glow Tech Steels (P) Ltd., where penalties were not justified for mistakes attributable to auditors.

        - Disallowance under Section 10B for Cotton Yarn Division: The CIT(A) found the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide belief and auditor's certificate. The Tribunal upheld this, referencing the ITAT Mumbai's decision in Niton Valve Industries (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which supported no penalties for such bona fide mistakes.

        - Disallowance under Section 10B for Kadi Unit: The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by referencing the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., where penalties were not justified for claims based on different interpretations.

        - Disallowance of Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation: The CIT(A) noted that the assessment order for the previous year was passed after the return for the current year was filed, indicating no mala fide intent. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this finding.

        The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in all respects and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

        Conclusion:
        All four appeals filed by the revenue and the three cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decisions on the treatment of unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT credit and the deletion of penalties related to various disallowances and deductions. The assessment orders under section 153A were upheld, and the penalties were found to be unjustified based on existing legal precedents.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found