|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dr J Sreedharan, Member, Settlement Commission of Customs & Excise, Chennai, passes away; Pension Regulator says pension funds to be invested in stock markets only through index funds; CVC seeks details spectrum issues from DoT; 1% of extra revenue mop-up for CBEC & CBDT - Revenue Boards set up committees on how to spend the money; Sales from one STP to another is not deemed export for Income Tax deductions: ITAT (Look for details coverage tomorrow) BSE Sensex tumbles by 1408 points - MoF advises Investors not to go by rumours; Mr V S Sampath takes over as new Secretary of Dept of Chemicals & Petrochemicals; British PM asks IMF & WB to give bigger role to India; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Also sending you the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
2008-TIOL-47-HC-DEL-IT.doc + dupont story.doc Income Tax - Assessee company manufactures insecticides and pesticides - files loss return with positive income - AO adds back provisions made for doubtful debts and stock damages while computing book profits as per Explanation (c) of Sec 115JA(2) as he believes that these were against unascertained liabilities - CIT(A) finds the deductions against ascertained liabilities and also holds as per SC decision in the Apollo Tyres case, the AO cannot make adjustment to book profits prepared under the Companies Act - Tribunal deletes additions, holding that the provisions were related to assets and not liabilities - As per the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal the assessee suffers stock damages on account of expiry, shortages reported by distributors and leakages during transportation and storage and these are admittedly related to ascertained liabilities, and moreover, the accounts of the assessee are prepared in accordance with Part II and Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, as envisaged u/s 115JA of the Act - No substantial question of law involved - Revenue's appeal dismissed with costs: DELHI HIGH COURT ; Income Tax - Calculation of capital gains - Revenue to assessee fair market value of land at 1981 price - Assessee buys land in 1978 and claims 40 times appreciation in the value of the same in 1981 - Revenue disagrees and CIT(A) fixes Rs 40 per foot as a fair price in place of Rs 80 per foot claimed - Tribunal also disagrees with the assessee - Since it is essentially a matter of fact, no law point involved - Assessee's appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ; Income Tax - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee runs a distillery unit - installs pollution control equipment close to fiscal end - equipments produce biogas after getting stabilised in subsequent year - claims depreciation u/s 32 - AO disallows on the ground that the biogas was not produced in the previous year - Penalty initiated for furnishing inaccurate information - CIT(A) and Tribunal set aside order - The expression 'used for the purposes of the business' in Sec 32 needs to be liberally interpreted, and the view taken by the Assessee was certainly plausible and that by itself would not mean that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars for the purposes of reducing its tax liability - A penal provision ought to be strictly construed - Revenue's appeal dismissed with costs: DELHI HIGH COURT ; Income Tax - Assessee is a liquore vendor - AO rejects the books of accounts as sales were not verified - Sec 145 - AO estimates salesand applies 5% net profit and levies penalty - CIT(A) deletes the penalty - Tribunal also upholds CIT's observation that there was nothing on record to falsify the assessee's explanation - No infirmity in Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
NOTIFICATION Excise exemption to Himachal & Uttranchal - Peripheral activities no longer eligible for benefits; Rule 12 amended - Quarterly return Form A notified; CBEC amends Central Excise Rules, 2002: In rule 12, in sub-rule (1), after the second proviso, provision for quarterly return inserted; CIRCULAR Amendments in notification Nos. 49 & 50/2003-CE giving exemption to HP & Uttranchal - Rule 12 amended - quarterly return form prescribed; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-107-CESTAT-MUM.doc + climax story.doc Climax & Stud are Anesthetics - Lidocaine, which is the only active ingredient of the products is an anesthetic, hence Climax & Stud are entitled to exemption Notification 6/94 dated 1.3.94 as amended by 114/94 dated 3.6.94 irrespective of the fact that it is used in sexual activities or otherwise.:MUMBAI CESTAT; Payment of duty on Aluminium Dross – appellants have communicated by their letter dated 15.9.99 that they are paying duty Under Protest – Refund claim for earlier period barred by limitation – General law of limitation viz. Limitation Act will not apply as limitation has been specifically prescribed under the CEA'44.:MUMBAI CESTAT; Writing off value from inventory is only for the purpose of books of accounts and there is no evidence produced by Revenue that the inputs/capital goods are not available in the factory premises – Cenvat Credit allowed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2008-TIOL-109-CESTAT-AHM.doc + st story.doc Service Tax – GTA – Receipt of raw material is input service and eligible for Cenvat credit irrespective of whether consignor or consignee paying the tax: In respect of service tax on the freight paid for receiving inputs/raw materials, the service tax paid whether by the consignor or by the respondents as consignees they are eligible to take credit of the service tax paid. Whether the service tax was paid by the consignor of the inputs or by the respondents does not make any difference in so far as eligibility for credit of the duty paid. The nature of input service does not undergo a change merely because the tax is paid by the recipient. Despatching finished goods is output service – no credit for the consignor: Merely because the respondent pays the service tax in respect of goods transport services availed for dispatching their goods to various consignees, the service does not become input service and they do not become service providers. In cases where the freight is paid by the respondents as consignors they are required to pay the service tax. But such service tax relates to output services. The said output services are rendered only by the goods transport operators/agencies. The respondents are required to pay service tax only as consignors and that does not make them as providers of goods transport services and therefore the question of their taking credit does not arise. ++ the service tax on goods transport agencies service paid by the respondents does not make them as service provider. ++ in respect of services availed for incoming consignments for which the respondents pay the service tax, they continued to be service recipients and therefore, such services are input services for them. ++the service tax paid by the consignors / respondents in respect of incoming consignments shall be eligible as credit. ++the service tax paid by the respondents in respect of outgoing consignments of finished goods, in their capacity of consignors shall not be eligible as credit to the respondents. ++ the respondents, while paying service tax on GTA service availed in connection with removal of their finished goods from factory are entitled to utilize, for payment of service tax on such service, the credit of tax paid on the input GTA service availed by them in connection with receipt of inputs received in their factory as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/ s.India Cements Ltd. cited supra. ++ notwithstanding taking of credit of service tax paid under goods transport operator/ agency services in respect of incoming consignments, the respondents are eligible to avail the benefit of notification No.32 /2004-ST dt.3 / 12/2004, + in the given facts and circumstances, of the case, which involve interpretational difference, imposition of penalty is not justified.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; Service Tax- GTA for the period 16.7.97 to 15.10.98 - the demand confirmed is based on the two amendments made one in 2003 and another in Oct. 2004. In such a situation, the question of fraud, collusion cannot arise. Tribunal ' s decision in case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. cited supra holds that one year period should be considered from 14.11.03, the date prescribed for fulfilling the condition of filing returns by the recipients of services of goods and transport agency. In this case, the show cause notice has been issued after one year from the relevant date and therefore, the demand is time barred.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATIONS DGFT clarifies if main line of business of an exporter changes after obtaining RCMC, no need to apply for a new RCMC till its validity; DGFT substitute Para 8.3.1 related to procedure for claiming deemed exports drawback and terminal excise duty refund; DGFT extends deadline for filing of papers for FMS and FPS scheme benefits; Customs – goods imported for re-export under Notification 158/95 Cus – duty demanded on the ground that the identity of the goods re-exported has not been established - at the time of importation, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Departmental Authorities were satisfied that the imported goods despite no marks and numbers inscribed on it were identitical to the goods earlier exported – since the exports were made under the DEPB scheme, it can be safely presumed that at least description of the goods in question have been properly examined and on that basis it is possible to conclude that the Appellants have satisfied the condition under Notification No 158/95 - the case of the Appellants requires to be viewed leniently and the duty demand confirmed under the impugned order requires to be set aside.: KOLKATA CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Excise exemption - Himachal and Uttarakhand – no exemption for peripheral activities; Service Tax – freight charges paid by Postal department – clarification; Volatile Capital Market: Does India need to fear PNs? International Taxation: The PE-dominated horizon in India; CBN looking for Dy Narcotics Commissioner; DRI arrests 'smart' importer evading Customs duty through related parties route; JP Morgan & GTC Special pick up 21% stake in Ballarpur Paper Holdings B V; BoA gives nod for 11 more SEZs, Total tally goes up to 439; TRAI proposes abolition of Access Deficit Charge from April 1, 2008; Chidambaram, Nath and Patel to put up India's case before global investors at Davos; L&T bags largest ever export order for Kuwait Reactors; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
