|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Law Minister says 2.56 lakh cases pending in P & H High Court as on Sept 30, 2007; BoA for SEZ to meet on Thursday; likely to clear 8 more SEZs; FM challenges BJP to face elections on loan waiver issue; House Panel suggests let a Ministry / Department pay for an investigation by CBI; Core Panel finalises Draft Charter for Panchayat convention; recommends functional empowerment of Panchayats; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
(BHEL Workers Union Vs UoI (Dated: January 23, 2008) Income Tax - Method of valuation of perquisites u/s 17(2) - Challenge to vires of Rule 3 as amended by Income Tax (Twenty Second) Amendment Rules, 2001 - Issue was settled by this court in Arun Kumar case (2006-TIOL-119-SC-IT-LB).and Since the subsequent amendment inserting Explanation 1 to Sec 17(2) by Finance Act, 2007 is not under challenge, the no need to record any opinion - Assessee's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT ; ( M/s Synco Industries Ltd Vs AO, Mumbai (Dated: March 13, 2008) Income Tax - Assessee has two separate units - one of oils and the other of chemicals - earns profits in AY 1990-91 & 1991-92 - but since the oil division had suffered losses in the earlier years, it claims deductions u/s 80HH and Sec 80I, claiming that each unit being treated separately and the losses of yesteryears not to be adjusted against the profits of the chemical division - AO finds the gross total income before deduction under Chapter VI-A 'nil' and thus denies the deduction - CIT(A), Tribunal and the HC uphold the AO's order - The loss of one unit of the assessee has to be set off against the profit of second unit eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and if the final figure is a loss, no deduction is to be allowed under Chapter VIA - Assessee's appeal disallowed: SUPREME COURT; (Ajay Kumar Shah Jagati Vs CIT (Dated: January 24, 2008) Income Tax - Assessee signs an agreement to sell its vacant land to a party for a consideration - An advance payment was made - AO issues show cause notice for levying capital gains on the entire consideration amount - Assessee argues since only a part of land was transferred and full possession not given, Sec 2(47) is not applicable - AO levies capital gains on the entire sum - Tribunal reverses the decision and the HC dismisses Revenue's appeal - Since the assessee did not submit the details about sub-division of the plots nor submit the sale deeds nor any revenue or municipal records were produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal and the HC erred in deciding the case - HC order set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh examination - Revenue's appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT ; 2008-TIOL-148-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + ansal story.pdf (CIT (Central-I), Delhi Vs Ansal Buildwell Ltd (Dated: March 4, 2008) Undisclosed income should be that which is discovered as a result, inter-alia, of a document or transaction which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of the Act. Both requirements are necessary, namely, material showing that the amount has not been or would not have been disclosed and that the expense, deduction or allowance should be false on the basis of the unearthed evidence. Facts must be relatable to the evidence available and not inferential. The Tribunal had opined that these were inadequate reasons for coming to the conclusion that the commission paid by the Assessee to M/s. Televista Electronics Limited was bogus. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal based on the material on record. The facts considered by the Assessing Officer may raise a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transaction, but that by itself is not enough. The facts must be relatable to the evidence available and not inferential. No appreciation of evidence at High Court: Counsel for the Revenue wanted the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. The Court held, Unfortunately, we cannot do that since no perversity has been shown from the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal.: DELHI HIGH COURT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
(CCE, Pune I Vs Bahar Agrochem & Feed (P) Ltd (Dated: February 4, 2008) Central Excise - classification of 'Vipul Booster' - insecticide vs plant growth regulator - Revenue says the product in quetion is registered as insecticide with the Directorate of Plant Protection- Since this aspect has not been looked into by the Tribunal, the matter remanded for fresh consideration: SUPREME COURT ; (M/s ACS Hydraulics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-III (Dated: January 25, 2008) Credit note received by assessee pertains only to reduction in price and not to the duty element, hence there is no question of reducing any Cenvat credit to that extent moreover, there is no evidence that the supplier has sought a refund of duty paid by him in excess. : MUMBAI CESTAT; (M/s Aga Fruits P Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: September 21, 2007) When the appellants have expressed readiness to establish correlation between the packing material and the corresponding export product through the requisite documents including ARE 1, (apprehended as overlooked by the adjudicating authority) and the corresponding Shipping Bill, the original authority should consider the case of clearances of 30,000 cans, and take fresh decision on recoverability of duty on such clearances, after hearing the party. In respect of the clearances in question for which there is no ARE 1, but based on collateral evidence produced by the appellant showing sufficient correlation between the cans cleared by the appellants to the job worker and the canned mango pulp exported with the help of Bills of Lading and Shipping Bills the benefit could be allowed on the ground of substantial compliance with the relevant condition. Appeal is allowed by way of remand directing the original authority to pass fresh order of adjudication in respect of the goods covered by Table II, in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.: CHENNAI CESTAT; (CCE, Pune-III Vs Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd (Dated: January 29, 2008) Once the competent agency under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 has certified fulfillment of export quota by the sugar factory, the excise department has no authority to challenge the same as the Act confers no such authority to sit in judgment over the decision of the concerned authorities.: MUMBAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION (M/s Kusalava Finance Limited Vs CC, CE & ST, Guntur (Dated: November 12, 2007) ST Hire Purchase Finance is different from Hire Purchase no tax on the former: BANGALORE CESTAT; (M/s Hydro S & S Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated: January 16, 2008) Service Tax only on receipt of payment: in terms of Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 service tax is payable on the gross amount received by the service provider. In the instant case the department has no case that the impugned amount was received by the appellants.:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Anti-dumping duty on hexamine: Govt extends it by one year on review; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-147-HC-DEL-CUS.pdf + baron story.pdf (Shakun Moolchandani Vs UoI (Dated: February 8, 2008) Customs offence jurisdiction for trial: Import took place in Mumbai, Show cause Notice issued in Mumbai, appeal filed in Mumbai prosecution launched in Delhi no part of the cause of action arose within Delhi. Delhi court has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is directed that the criminal complaint in question will be returned to the complainant DRI by the learned ACMM , New Delhi for being presented in the appropriate court, which in this case would be in Mumbai. The court at Mumbai will proceed to deal with the complaint from the stage of its presentation to it and decided afresh about taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons to the accused uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 17th December, 2003 as well as the order dated 6th July, 2004 passed by the learned ACMM , New Delhi: DELHI HIGH COURT; (Shri Lalitkumar R Jagawat Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: November 15, 2007) Tribunal is precluded to go into the merits when the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merits: MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Attrition rate really alarming! Private airports: Is Govt encouraging private monopolies in name of 'competition'? The complex treatment of losses in Income Tax Act; 2008-TIOL-50-SC-PF.doc.pdf + pf story.pdf (Manipal Academy of Higher Education Vs PF Commissioner (Dated: March 12, 2008) PF Contribution: Basic wages: (a) Where the wage is universally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all across the board such emoluments are basic wages. (b) Where the payment is available to be specially paid to those who avail of the opportunity is not basic wages. By way of example it was held that overtime allowance, though it is generally in force in all concerns is not earned by all employees of a concern. It is also earned in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment but because it may not be earned by all employees of a concern, it is excluded from basic wages. (c) Conversely, any payment by way of a special incentive or work is not basic wages. The inevitable conclusion is that basic wage was never intended to include amounts received for leave encashment.: SUPREME COURT ; MoF raises queries on dual spectrum technology; PSU telecom companies losing market to pvt companies: Minister; MoF raises queries on dual spectrum technology; Unsolicited calls: TRAI notifies disincentive for non-compliant service providers; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
