|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Contract of FM's Advisor Parthasarathi Shome terminated w.e.f January 11; PM says 11th Plan is India's Education Plan; HP polls - BJP bags majority; Party leaders claim Gujarat + HP are trailers before parliamentary elections; Chennai Airport Customs seizes another lot of 621 live star tortoises; BSE to launch mini contracts in derivative market from Jan 1, 2008; PPP supremo Benazir Bhutto assassinated; Suicide bomber kills 30 more in Rawalpindi election meeting; India also steps up vigil on borders; Core sector growth nosedives to 4.5% in October as compared to 9.9% last October; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Also sending you the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
ORDER CBDT promotes 48 CITs as CCITs; issues posting-cum-transfer order for 58; CASE LAWS 2007-TIOL-237-SC-IT.doc + sc it story.doc Statutory Board not a charitable trust? One of the objections raised on behalf of the Department was that Gujarat Maritime Board is not entitled to the benefit of Section 11 of the Act as the said Board was not a trust under Public Trust Act and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim registration under Section 12A of the 1961 Act. The Department's case was that the Maritime Board was a statutory Authority. It was not a trust. Its business was not held under a trust. Its property was not held under trust. Therefore, the Board was not entitled to be registered as a Charitable Institution. It was the case of the Department that the Board was performing statutory functions. Development of minor ports in the state of Gujarat cannot be termed as the work undertaken for charitable purposes and in the circumstances the Commissioner rejected the Board's application under Section 12A of the 1961 Act. The expression , "any other object of generally public utility" is of the widest connotation. The word "general" in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals would be a charitable purpose. The said expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public. It cannot be said that a purpose would cease to be charitable even if public welfare is intended to be served. If the primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare of the general public the purpose would be charitable purpose.When an object is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility, but not so, if it seeks to promote the interest of those who conduct the said trade or industry. If the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the Institution from being a valid charity. In the present case, Gujarat Maritime Board is established for the predominant purpose of development of minor ports within the State of Gujarat , the management and control of the Board is essentially with the State Government and there is no profit motive. The income earned by the Board is deployed for the development of minor ports in the State . In the circumstances, the judgment of the Court in Andhra Pradesh State road Transport Corporation squarely applies to the facts of the present case. APSRTC not liable to pay Income Tax. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the Supreme Court had held that since the Corporation was established for the purpose of providing efficient transport system, having no profit motive, though it earns income in the process, it is not liable to income-tax.: SUPREME COURT; Income Tax - Assessee is into hotel and civil engineering contracts business - claims income from service charges under the head income from house property - In earlier AYs the income was assessed under other sources and the same was endorsed by the Tribunal - On this basis the AO initiates penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) sets aside proceedings on the basis of the assessee's claim that it had filed a reference application - Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order - Since the assessee has furnished all the particulars in its return and has only claimed a different head, no valid ground for initaiting penalty proceedings - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT; Income Tax - Assessee is a textile mill - During the relevant years the assessee had not started its business operations but had earned substantial interest receipts - AO treats it as income from other sources - CIT(A) goes with the AO but the Tribunal holds interest income prior to commencement of business can be capitalised - It is settled law that when the business itself has not commenced, the application of Secs 70 & 71 cannot be invoked - Tribunal's order set aside and Revenue's appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT; Income Tax - Assessee claims deduction for commission paid for sale of goods - AO disallows on the basis of statements recorded from buyer's company - Assessee produces letter from the partnership firm confirming receipt of commission - AO ignores the letter on the strength of buyer company's officials' statement - Tribunal directs Revenue to verify the claims of the commission-receiving company and do fresh assessee - It is well established legal principle that in the hierarchy of the statutory authorities, when the higher fact-finding authority remitted the matter with a direction to follow certain procedure, the lower authority has to make that exercise - In this case, the Income-tax Officer has totally flouted the direction to verify with the letter of the firm that has accepted that they did receive the commission from the assessee - Revenue's appeal set aside: MADRAS HIGH COURT; 2007-TIOL-456-ITAT-DEL.doc + jobworker story.doc Income Tax - Manufacturing and production need not necessarily mean by the owner only, but also includes job work by job worker also and can claim deduction under section 80IB of the Act: DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
NOTIFICATION / CIRCULAR excircular862.doc + exnt07_42.doc Amendments to the Central Excise (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005; CASE LAWS 2007-TIOL-751-HC-MAD-CX.doc + itc story.doc Belated filing of modvat declaration - Tribunal order correctly appreciates the amending the notification 7/99CE(N.T) & guidelines issued by the Board - Revenue appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT; Central Excise - valuation - goods cleared to related buyers - the assessee paid duty on the price at which the goods were sold to unrelated buyers - revenue demands duty on the price at which the goods are ultimately sold by the related buyers - it is settled position that Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 is an exception to the general rule and that the exception is applicable only where the manufacturer so arranges that the excisable goods are not sold by them except to or through related person - orders of the lower authorities are set aside - Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT; EOUs - demand of interest on the rejects and waste of marble slabs and blocks cleared in DTA - the appellants pleaded that the goods are not excisable in view of the Apex Court ruling before the lower authorities which was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) - matter remanded - Appeal allowed by way of remand: CHENNAI CESTAT; Central Excise - undervaluation - Rin cake cleared along with free item Vim Bar - the assessee is not required to pay duty on any amount in excess of the consideration ordinarily received on sale of manufactured goods at arms length - The demand is made beyond the normal period for clearances made against price declared to the Department. Demand is not sustainable on merits and limitation - Revenue appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT;
Service Tax - goods transport agency service - payment of service tax on goods transport agency service by the recipient from Cenvat credit - the service tax should be deemed to be their 'Output Service' and, for payment of such tax, credit of service tax paid on any input service and/or credit of duty paid on any input or capital goods could be validly availed - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT; Service Tax - Security services - revenue is in appeal against the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act - in the instant case, the Commissioner has not found that the respondents had evaded payment of service tax intentionally - From the circumstances of the case, the penalties imposed in the impugned order cannot be held to be inconsistent with the law as interpreted by the Tribunal relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) - revenue appeal is devoid of merits - Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Amends para 6.11(c)(iv) related to reimbursement of duty paid on fuel procured from oil companies; On time approval for GM soyabean oil by GEAC; Curbs on export of non-basmati rice - Minimum export price; Ketamine issue: DGFT finally amends policy to allow exports but only after getting NOC from Narcotics Commissioner; Supply of goods from DTA to SEZ - eligible for benefits under focus Product scheme; CASE LAWS Customs - import of second hand photocopiers without licence - Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation - matter remanded to provide an option to redeem the goods in view of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on identical issues - Appeal allowed by way of remand: CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Call girls hired by employees - Should company reimburse? Eligible as tax deduction? Exemption of Service Tax to SEZ units - MoC & MoF lock horns while SEZ units look helpless; ATMisation of banking services - RBI needs to ensure orderly growth; ED looking for Asst Legal Adviser; Amendments to Equity Listing Agreement; Tata Tele to man fixed line services at Hyderabad Airport; Year 2007 - Parliament passed 46 Bills; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
