|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Export duty on steel products: Differences crop up among Ministries; Delay in finalisation of New Pharma Policy: House Panel expresses serious concern; CII also receives SCN for not paying service tax for overseas trade fair under 'Business Exhibition Services'; Govt appoints Lt Gen Nirbhay Sharma as Member of UPSC; India successfully testfires Agni-III; All Greenfield airports not to require Cabinet nod: Minister; Revised Citizen Charter for CBEC (See 'DDT') |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2008-TIOL-94-SC-IT.pdf + FBT story.pdf R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd Vs CIT (Dated : May 6, 2008) Income Tax - Additional tax in the form of Fringe Benefits Tax u/s 115WB - Assessee is a non-resident company - provides Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig along with crew on a day rate charter hire basis - incurs transportation expenses on non-resident employees from their residence outside India to work place and back home - claims exemption under sub-section(3) of Sec 115WB - Held - Following purposive construction of statute, the matters enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 115WB are not covered by sub-section (3) thereof, and the amenity in the nature of free or subsidized transport is covered by sub-section (1) and such expenditure is liable to FBT Resident : The applicant had sought advance ruling - Held - Residence within the meaning of the provisions would mean residence in India and as the employees concerned are residents of the countries outside India, sub-section (3) of Section 115WB is not applicable - Held - AAR was not correct in its view in reading the words 'in India' after the word residence in sub-section (3) as FBT being a tax on expenditure, it does not make such a distinction; however, the nature of expenses is key to determining the applicability of FBT and it is to be determined by the Assessing Authority : SUPREME COURT ; CIT Vs M/s Vadilal Industries Ltd (Dated : April 9, 2008) Income Tax - Disallowance u/s 37(3A) - AO opts for gross expenditure towards advertisdement and sales promotion - Since the assessee had recovered a major part of the expenditure incurred from dealers, it pleaded for only the net expenditure - Tribunal sets aside the CIT(A) order given in favour of the Revenue - what can be allowed or disallowed would depend on the deductin claimed and when the assessee has claimed deduction of a sum of only Rs 46,473/- the Revenue cannot disallow the gross expenditure - The scheme of the Act envisages that only after an amount is determined under sec. 37(1) as being allowable and the same falls within any of the specified categories of sec. 37(3B) of the Act, the question of partial disallowance under sec. 37(3A) of the Act may arise - Revenue's appeal dismissed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT ; Citizen Softwares Vs UoI (Dated : March 20, 2008) Income Tax - Interim relief sought - Constitutional validity of Sec 245D(2A) for interest payment on additional tax demand and Sec 245H under challenge - No power to interfere with the functioning of Parliament - Interim relief sought in the form of a stay on the relevant Section denied : HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ; Himson Fadis Machinery Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Dated : April 15, 2008) Income Tax - Sec 80I benefits - Assessee installs machineries brought on hire and claims deduction for the rental u/s 80I - AO allows it but CIT invokes powers u/s 263 and sets aside the assessment order - Appeal before Tribunal - Since the assessee has failed to submit information to show when the machineries were used by the lessor company or it was a new industrial unit, the condition No (ii) under sub-section (2) of Sec 80I was not fulfilled - Since the Tribunal's findings specifically indicate that the plant and machineries installed by the assessee have earlier been used by the lessor company, the lease of the same amounts to transfer, and the benefits cannot be allowed - Assessee's appeal dismissed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CBEC issues posting order of 58 probationers;
2008-TIOL-93-SC-CX.pdf + sc cx story.pdf CCE, New Delhi Vs India Thermit Corporation Ltd (Dated : May 1, 2008) No two proceedings on the same issue: Since, the department has accepted the earlier adjudications on the same issue for part of the period, revenue cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same point for a part of the remaining period. There cannot be second proceedings raising the demand for the same period. Undervaluation – related person: even if ATL & ITCL are taken to be related persons [Court is not holding so], it has not influenced the price. There is no under- valuation. ATL has been selling the product to ITCL and Indian Railways at or about the same price. : SUPREME COURT ; CCE, Coimbatore Vs M/s Coimbatore Pioneer Mills (Dated : March 17, 2008) Central Excise – exemption – benefit of exemption under Notification 253/82 dated 8/11/82 to cotton polyester blended lungi fabrics – the processes undertaken by the assessee do not amount to manufacture – the question that the exemption notification does not cover or cover a process for exemption is not material – no merit in revenue appeal. :CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Saravana Insulators Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated : February 1, 2008) Central Excise – stay/dispensation of pre-deposit – duty on excisable goods demanded from the appellant who took the property on lease – the question as to whether the manufacturer is liable to pay duty or the occupant of the factory needs to be decided after hearing detailed arguments – the appellants have not made a prima facie case – pre-deposit ordered. :CHENNAI CESTAT; CCE, Patna Vs M/s Bharat Coca Cola Bottling North East (P) Ltd (Dated : February 26, 2008) Deposits collected from customers towards glass bottles in which aerated water is supplied to safeguard against breakage & non-return – actual price cannot be a basis of valuation under Section 4A of the CEA, 1944 but only the retail sale price – Revenue appeals rejected. Aerated waters - Assessment made under s.4A - Rental charges on bottles and crates cannot be included in value - even if sale price is higher than the M.R.P., the duty has to be paid on the basis of M.R.P. and not on the actual retail sale price – Tribunal decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. [ 2006-TIOL-534-CESTAT-DEL ] followed. : KOLKATA CESTAT; M/s Epcos Ferrites Ltd Vs CCE, KOL-III (Dated : February 25, 2008) Suspicion however grave is no substitute of proof - No cogent evidence to prove that in the guise of consumption of excess quantity of imported material, there was diversion of such material with any ulterior motive or for any oblique purpose - Concessional rate of Customs duty under 46/96-CUS & 25/99-CUS dated 28.02.1999 available – Appeal allowed. : KOLKATA CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION Misuse of Cenvat Credit on cellular towers ; CASE LAWS CCE, Mangalore Vs M/s Jayaram & Ashwajith (Dated : January 18, 2008) Service Tax - Activity of undertaking outsourcing of meter reading, billing, and ledger posting does not come within the ambit of the professional activity of Practicing Chartered Accountant – ledger maintenance service rendered is not a professional service of accounting under Chartered Accountants Act and hence the service will not come under tax net . : BANGALORE CESTAT; Shri C Krishnakumar, Putahan House, Torapalyam, Palakkad-I Vs CCE, CC & ST, Cochin (Dated : January 03, 2008) Service Tax- the activity of supplying manpower to Cargo handling service cannot be equated to the services of Cargo handling. : BANGALORE CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION DGFT adds Cuttle Fish & Squids under VKGUY; DGFT adds Silk products to list of 'Focus Products' in Appendix 37D; CASE LAWS CC & CE, Hyderabad-II Vs M/s Komma Reddy Computer Services (Dated : February 7, 2008) Customs – confiscation - old and used color monitors imported without lincence – revenue in appeal against fixing the redemption fine and penalty at 10% and 5% of the value of the goods respectively by the Commissioner (Appeals) – the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on a large number of Tribunal decisions while fixing the fine and penalty – no infirmity in the order – revenue appeal has no merit. : BANGALORE CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Cell phone Towers – No Cenvat credit; Import of Services : The enigma of 'Relevant Date' for taxability! 2008-TIOL-94-SC-IT.pdf + kerala story.pdf R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd Vs CIT (Dated : May 6, 2008) Income Tax - Additional tax in the form of Fringe Benefits Tax u/s 115WB - Assessee is a non-resident company - provides Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig along with crew on a day rate charter hire basis - incurs transportation expenses on non-resident employees from their residence outside India to work place and back home - claims exemption under sub-section(3) of Sec 115WB - Held - Following purposive construction of statute, the matters enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 115WB are not covered by sub-section (3) thereof, and the amenity in the nature of free or subsidized transport is covered by sub-section (1) and such expenditure is liable to FBT Resident : The applicant had sought advance ruling - Held - Residence within the meaning of the provisions would mean residence in India and as the employees concerned are residents of the countries outside India, sub-section (3) of Section 115WB is not applicable - Held - AAR was not correct in its view in reading the words 'in India' after the word residence in sub-section (3) as FBT being a tax on expenditure, it does not make such a distinction; however, the nature of expenses is key to determining the applicability of FBT and it is to be determined by the Assessing Authority : SUPREME COURT ; ATM 2008: Efforts on to make India top tourist destination ; Delay in finalisation of New Pharma Policy: House Panel expresses serious concern ; All Greenfield airports not to require Cabinet nod: Minister ; TRAI releases Paper on Carrier Selection by consumers for long distance calls ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
