|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
NTPC, BSEB sign JV pact to run 1980 MW Nabinagar plant; MoC working on plans to lend autonomy to govt-run SEZs numbering 8; PM promises package to address indebtedness of farmers soon; Pakistan, India sign packt to improve air services; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending you the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Income Tax - Assessee claims interest on borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year and partial depreciation on block of assets - First issue no more res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in favour of assessee and against the department in the case of Dy. CIT, Ahmedabad v. M/s Core Health Care Ltd. - Second issue is decided by High Court in favour of assessee relying on decision in CIT v. Mahendra Mills & Anr.(2000) but the matter is remanded to H.C. setting aside its order on this question since Sec. 34(1) stands omitted w.e.f. 1.4.88 and in Mahendra Mills case concept of block of assets was not there with a direction to consider whether assessee has an option to claim partial depreciation in respect of block of assets and whether judgement in Mahendra Mills case is applicable to AYs under consideration - Question 1 in favour of assessee and question 2 remanded - Revenue's appeal partly allowed.: SUPREME COURT; Income Tax - Exemption u/s 12AA - Assessee-association was formed for welfare, cultural, social and educational purposes of its members who were employees of the NDDB - Revenue denies registration on the ground that the association restricted the benefits to only its members - Tribunal allows - If an object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility, Revenue cannot deny registration for availing exemption - Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT ; Income Tax - Assessee claims deduction on purchase of a machine on account of research and development expenditure u/s 35(1) - A.O. disallows on the ground that machinery is not used for research and development merely by looking at the brochure - Sec.35(3), prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1st April 2000, required an issue like this to be referred to the prescribed authority for determination whose decision was final which in the instant case was Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research in the Ministry of Science and Technology and thus A.O. could not disallow the said expenditure without referring the matter to the said authority - Revenue's appeal dismissed - (Para 3,4,5,6).: DELHI HIGH COURT ; 2008-TIOL-80-ITAT-DEL.pdf + gk story.pdf Income Tax - Assessee, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, claims to be a charitable association and applies for registration u/s 12-A - Revenue rejects on the ground that the objects of association are not of general public utility and just for welfare of residents of the locality - The term 'charitable purpose' as defined in Sec. 2(15) includes relief for poor, education , medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility wherein the term 'general public utility' does not mean that the object should be for the benefit of entire mankind and it is sufficient if it is for the benefit of a section of public as distinguished from individual benefit - In the instant case though membership of association was restricted to the members of locality but the benefits were not restricted to them and were available to people of surrounding areas and all others who came to the locality without any discrimination without an element of personal benefit for a particular person thereby entitling it to registration u/s 12-A being a charitable association - Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT; Income Tax - Assessee, engaged in the business of producing and marketing films, documentary etc., acquires rights in a serial produced by its subsidiary and advertisement rights against consideration - sells advertisement rights through advertising agents - A.O. holds assessee for violation of Sec.201(1) for non deduction of TDS on the ground that payment made for acquisition of rights in serial are in the nature of fee for technical services and those to adverising agents are in the nature of commission - The producer of programme was subsidiary of assessee and the latter simply purchased rights in it, thus consideration paid was for acquiring rights and not in the nature of fee for technical service - Amount retained by advertising agents is in the nature of trade discount where amount is given by advertising agents to assessee and not vice versa and the transaction is of principal to principal thus there is no question of deduction of TDS - Revenue's apeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Guidelines for Compounding of Offences; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-244-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + damage story.pdf Finished goods damaged in floods but later reconditioned and cleared on payment of appropriate duty – by lodging a claim with insurance company in respect of the same goods & recovering damages the assessee has not violated any Central Excise Rules – Finding a Prima facie case, Tribunal waives pre-deposit of penalty.: MUMBAI CESTAT; Process of cutting and slitting jumbo paper and PVC rolls whether amounts to manufacture – Strong prima facie case made by the assessee in view of Supreme Court decision in S.R.Tissues 2005-TIOL-101-SC-CX – Stay granted.: MUMBAI CESTAT; Appellant had availed Cenvat credit on rods, which were utilized by the appellant for drawing the wire and subsequently discharging the duty liability – Revenue contending that process not amounting to manufacture & hence availment of credit not proper - appellant's case is squarely covered by the Taxation of Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 and Board's Circular dated 26/7/2006 – Order set aside & appeals allowed.: MUMBAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION Notification ST-47/2008 to be read as 2/2008; Notification ST-46/2008 to be read as 1/2008; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-246-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + ST se GST.pdf Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – Credit availed on the goods transport service need not be reversed if the inputs are returned to the supplier - Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for recovery of equal amount of credit on inputs and capital goods only if they are removed from the factory - There is no such provision to reverse credit of service tax availed in relation to such inputs or capital goods when removed from the factory.: CHENNAI CESTAT; ST - Cargo Handling Service - Assessee's contract is for reclamation of high grade iron ores and removal of rejects - Such an activity is not covered under the cargo handling service . : KOLKATA CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION CIRCULAR Valuation practice of second hand machinery to be adopted by all Custom Houses/ Customs Commissionerates-regarding; NOTIFICATION Tariff value of poppy seads revised; no changes again for palm oil; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-94-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + cus story.pdf Customs – prosecution and adjudication: It is an admitted case that there is no variance in the charges levelled and the acquisition made against the first respondent herein before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was the subject matter of the Criminal Revision before this Court in which the first respondent was discharged. The basic material which formed the basis for levelling the charges against the first respondent herein, before this Court in the criminal proceedings and before the Tribunal are verbatim same, neither there is a deletion nor addition in it. In those factual circumstances of the case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by stating that on the very same charges levelled against the first respondent, this Court, in the Criminal Revision, discharged him from all the charges and hence, the first respondent cannot be thrust with penalty in a sum of Rs.5 ,00,000 /-, as there was no material to connect him with the alleged charges. When the attempt of the appellant to establish the charges levelled against the first respondent has failed and this Court has also categorically viewed that there was absolutely no material adduced by the appellant to connect the first respondent in the alleged smuggling activities, we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent. : MADRAS HIGH COURT; Customs – valuation – import - technical know how fee paid to the supplier - know-how fee paid by the assessee did not satisfy the twin conditions under Rule 9(1) (c) (relation of payment of licence fee to the imported goods and payment of such fee being a condition of sale of such goods) - the same was not includible in the assessable value of the goods.:CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Strengthen the CESTAT -give their Lordships some facilities; Steel Industry wants Budget to levy excise on cutting and slitting of HR, CR Coils; Open up the wealth street to Aam Adami; Northern Coalfields looking for Dir (Fin); More items de-reserved; Zydus Cadila firms up presence in Oncology segment with Nudoxa; DRI busts syndicate of commercial fraudsters making Mumbai Air Cargo their home! Vocationalisation of secondary education to be key area in 11th Plan; Steel Majors agree to partial rollback of prices after Govt steps in; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
