|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CBEC to issue Chief Commissioners' additional charge order soon; BSNL unions protest against VRS plans; Lanka seeks investment from India in SEZ and Oil exploration sectors; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending you the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
2007-TIOL-222-ITAT-MUM.doc + remand story.doc Income Tax - Depreciation of over 1.19 Crores on the ground that the very purchase of the machinery was doubted in spite of the fact that the assessee produced unimpeachable evidence - case remanded :ITAT; Income Tax - Assessee treats lease rent of machinery as 'Income from business or profession' and claims depreciation - A.O. disallows on the ground that lease rental is income from other sources thus depreciation not allowable - CIT(A) restores the matter to A.O. to decide afresh - Assessee makes a fresh claim of deduction on account of unpaid bonus and additional customs duty which neither pertained to the relevant assessment year nor was claimed in original assessment proceedings - A.O. disallows fresh claim on the ground that the matter wasn't set aside by CIT(A) and power of A.O. is limited to the matter remanded - Even if the amount is treated as income from other sources, depreciation u/s 57(iii) is to be allowed on assets from which lease rental is received - Though the claim of unpaid bonus and additional duty was not made in original proceedings, it can be entertained by the Tribunal for the first time and if actually paid, is to be allowed in terms of Sec.43B which is mandatory in nature :ITAT; Income Tax - AY-2001-02 - Assessee shows a loss in return - A.O. makes an assessment on nil income by disallowing loss and imposes penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Prior to amendment by Finance Act 2002, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed only where there is positive income and tax is leviable - Revenue's appeal dismissed :ITAT; Income Tax - Assessee files revised computation of income and claims credit for TDS deducted in foreign country but inadvertently included in total income - A.O. declines but CIT(A) allows - Revenue contends amendment of return not possible without revising it - SC order in Goetze (India) ltd. case restricts the power of AO but not of Tribunal u/s254 and a fresh point of law can be raised in front of the Tribunal provided it is raised on facts already on record - Assessee has raised fresh ground on the facts on record as she filed a claim before assessing officer before completion of assessment order - Case remanded to verify the TDS credit :ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
2007-TIOL-1057-CESTAT-MUM.doc + premises story.doc L-6 premises and L-4 premises are situated within the same campus - Supervision charges not required to be paid when services provided by departmental officers within normal office hours :Cestat; 2007-TIOL-1056-CESTAT-SRINAGAR.doc + cement story.doc Appellant could not produce cement and put it to commercial sale in absence of BIS Certificate - Commercial production started only from 15.6.2002 - Appellant eligible for the benefit of the exemption under the Notification No.56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002:Cestat; Central Excise - Motor cars - valuation - the appellant reimbursed part of the advertisement expenditure incurred by the dealers - there is no enforceable legal right against the dealers to incur expenditure on advertisement - Such expenditure incurred by the dealers or financiers is not includible in the assessable value of the cars :Cestat;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2007-TIOL-1059-CESTAT-BANG.doc + interior st story.doc Service Tax - Interior Decors - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Prima facie the activities carried out by appellant are more akin to civil work in terms of definition of the term Commercial or Industrial Construction Services but not Interior Decorators- Pre-deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs to be paid with in specified period ordered :Cestat; Service Tax - Recipient of Goods Transport operator services - The appellants are entitled to abatement to the extent of 75% of the value of the taxable service under Notification 32/2004 ST dated 3.12.04 in view of the 37 B order issued by the CBEC :Cestat;
CUSTOMS SECTION Customs - Imports - Appellate Tribunal cannot grant equitable relief -alternate claim for exemption should have been raised at the point of adjudication - appeal No C 497 dismissed Customs - Appellant charged interest @24% - Subsequently it seeks refund on the ground that maximum interest that can be charged u/s 61 is what is specified in Sec. 47 is 15% - There is a difference between the word 'Fixed' and 'Specified' and the limit specified u/s 47 is 30% not 15% which was fixed by Central government - Appellant's appeal rejected :Cestat; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Scrutiny of returns - be ready for the shock; Heroin industry thrives on practices of Osama bin Laden School of Management - India needs unified policy to save citizenry on borders! Applications invited for post of Director (Fin) in ITI Ltd; Sky Industries signs agreement with Dyno LLC, USA; Bharati Shipyard bags order worth USD 44 mn; Punj Lloyd's subsidiary bags Sentosa contract worth Rs 666 Cr; Hindustan Dorr secures mega order from Bharat Oman Refineries; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
