|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Finished carbon steel production up by 6.6% between April - December, 2007; STT and FBT contribute Rs 6800 Cr & 5100 Cr respectively to Direct Tax kitty till Jan 15, 2008; Patent dispute: SC restrains TVS from booking bike 'TVS Flame' till Jan 29; Calcutta HC rules land acquisition in Singur is legal; Canadian diplomat says India and Canada on verge of signing Foreign Investment Protection & Promotion Agreement; PM's Advisory Council recommends petro price hike; Cabinet postpones decision on FDI hike in aviation sector; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Also sending you the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
TRANSFER ORDER 7 CCITs transferred at All India level; CBDT denies permission to its officer to participate in the Ship for World Youth Programme; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-43-HC-ALL-IT.doc + hc it story.doc Where assessment has not been made under section 143(2) or 147 of the Act, notice under section 148 can be issued: 1. either by an assessing officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner or above, or; 2. an officer below that rank provided the Joint Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. In the case before us, the Income Tax Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner and who is an assessing officer according to the definition given in the Income Tax Act, 1961, was empowered to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act in the light of the sanction accorded for such issuance of notice by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Commissioner could not have given the sanction and only the Joint Commissioner could have given the sanction. We are unable to accept the submission, considering the basic purpose for which such sanction has been provided for. The obvious purpose is to exercise proper supervision by a superior officer of the department.: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT; Income Tax - Can lodging charges be treated as entertainment expenses? - AO says yes and the CIT(A) agrees - Tribunal says no and treats it as business expenditure - However, the issue was settled by the Division Bench of this court in favour of the Revenue and no deduction beyond the permissible limit was allowable on such expenses - Revenue's appeal allowed: P & H HIGH COURT; 2008-TIOL-29-ITAT-BANG.doc + Iseva Systems Story.doc Call centre – telecommunication charges: It is undisputed that telecommunication charges have to be necessarily incurred being part of the assessee's business activity.There is no pre-determined method or scientific reflection of the business activity in order to narrow down the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the telecommunication for assigning the same.With the wide increase of telecommunication services and the thrust of the assessee in running a call centre, it becomes important to note that once the expenses incurred are for the business, it will be nobody's case to disallow the same as having not been incurred for rendering the services as a call centre by the assessee, who has claimed deduction u/s. 10A , which the AO verified as another provision of section 10A compared to section 80HHE.Once this exercise has been undertaken, it becomes important to consider the overall impact of the disallowance of the telecommunication expenses not for the purpose of business. Uplinking charges – part of turnover? Tribunal had in 2008-TIOL-18-ITAT-BANG held that the uplinking charges which were reduced for ascertaining the export turnover are not to be considered for the purpose of total turnover in view of the fact that the total turnover is the sum total of export turnover and internal turnover, meaning thereby that whatever is reduced from the export turnover has to be reduced from the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10A . Telecom charges deduction – 50%: the telecommunication expenses which have been estimated at 70% by the CIT (Appeals) is pertaining to having been incurred for the export turnover be estimated at 50% in view of the incoming and outgoing expenses continuously from a call centre. In other words, 75% of the telecommunication expenditure as estimated by the CIT ( Appeals) is reduced to 50% to be considered as attributable to the delivery of software outside India which should be reduced from the export turnover. : BANGALORE ITAT; Income Tax - Search u/s 132 - Revenue seizes papers indicating cash loans, repayment of cash loans and interest payments - Assessee's name figures in the list of persons who had given cash loans - Assessee admits advancing loans from family trust - AO initiates proceedings u/s 153A - Assessee questions legality of invocation of Sec 153 - There is a subsstantial difference in the language used in Sec 153C and Sec 158BD as Sec 153C states if valuable or books of account or documents belonging to other persons are seized then action can be taken against that person - Since in the instant case, books of account or documents do not belong to the assessee, the AO was not justified in initiating action under section 153A read with section 153C of the Income-tax Act: BANGALORE ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Central Excise - Capital goods credit - Is 'lighting fittings' covered under the list of capital goods eligible for credit under Rule 57Q ? - Revenue disallows but Tribunal allows the benefits - Since it is well covered in the SC's decision in the case of Jawahar Mills (2002-TIOL-87-SC-CX) , credit cannot be denied - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT; 2008-TIOL-95-CESTAT-MUM.doc + cable story.doc Tribunal finds the adjudicating authority's order outrageous, atrocious & shows complete lack of knowledge and law on the part of the adjudicating authority – Allows interest on the refund claimed:MUMBAI CESTAT; Central Excise – Stay /Dispensation of pre-deposit – Duty demanded and interest due thereon paid prior to issue of show cause notice. Prima facie case made out to waive penalty imposed. Pre-deposit of interest waived and stay granted. (para 5): CHENNAI CESTAT; Central Excise – Stay /Dispensation of pre-deposit – Capital goods credit availed on ‘Transport Tanker with Chasis for liquid Gases' and ‘Tank Trailer Vacum Isolated for Cryogas'. The impugned goods was not used within the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, and no valid document evidencing proof of the duty paid against which credit could be taken was available. Prima facie no case made out by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit. Pre-deposit of duty ordered. However, pre-deposit of penalty waived on compliance of order. (para 5): CHENNAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION ST - Assessee suo moto adjusts excess service tax recovered from subscribers in subsequent half yearly return - Revenue raised demand with interest - On the face of the issue the assessee is not permitted to do so as per Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules and then the Tribunal in the A C Nielsen Org Marg case observed that the adjustment of the excess Service Tax paid towards discharge of liability of another half year is admissible only if the value of the taxable service along with Service Tax thereon is returned - Pre-deposit ordered: MUMBAI CESTAT; ST - Travel Agency - Demand raised - Assessee argues that the partnership firm did not exist during the period referred in the SCN - One of the partners of the firm provided some service in her individual capacity - Since the service was provided by one of the partners whose name is also there in the service tax registration, the demand notice cannot be issued against the partnership firm - Demand set aside : DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION Customs - Import – Penalty - Appellant imported ‘Mulberry Raw silk' claiming benefits of duty exemption under Customs Notification No. 48/99 dated 29-4-99. Investigations revealed that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification. A penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs was imposed on the appellants. M/s Ishwar Impex paid the price of the impugned goods to the foreign supplier and in whose favour the relevant import documents were endorsed by the supplier after revoking a deal with the present appellants, redeemed the goods by paying fine, differential duty and interest. Held – As the ownership of the impugned goods does not vest with the appellant they cannot be held liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Appeal allowed. (Para 3): CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Courage – Grace under pressure – Leader of the year; Paying taxes – not all that easy ! Salary hike for constitutional office-bearers: Does it imply upper ceiling for Pay Commission? ONGC Videsh looking for Dir (Fin); No competent DRs to argue cases before CESTAT – Tribunal wants Commissioners to depute competent officers.; STT and FBT contribute Rs 6800 Cr & 5100 Cr respectively to Direct Tax kitty till Jan 15, 2008; India asks Indonesia to remove NTBs on import of Indian pharma items; DRI seizes rare herbs restricted under CITES; Importer booked for misdeclaration; TRAI makes public a-la-carte rates of pay channels; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
