|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
ITAT Accountant Member caught red-handed receiving bribe of Rs 30 lakh; CBI arrests two persons, including Member (See 'Common Basket') Govt notifies new accounting standards under Companies Act; to be effective from FY 2007-08 (See 'Common Basket') Govt hikes monetary allowance for Gallantry Awardees; President confers Kirti Chakras on six (See 'Common Basket') CBEC Board finalises Commissioners' transfer order; to move file upward today; Customs collections in April register 24% growth; Serial bomb blasts in Jaipur; 9 blasts reported in span of 25 minutes; 72 dead and 174 injured; Red Alert sounded across India by Home Ministry; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending you the following files: |
||
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CIT, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Ashini Lease Finance P Ltd (Dated: May 6, 2008) Income Tax - Assessee borrows funds to invest in shares and acquire a company - deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) claimed - AO disallows on the ground that interests were paid to acquire a company but the same was taken over by some other company - AO also found that the shares of the takeover company were sold only to facilitate the takeover - Tribunal sets aside the order and HC agrees with the Tribunal - prima facie, the assessee had acquired the shares of the takeover company only through finances arranged from the third company which finally effected the takeover, and it if proved indicates circular trading entered into solely with the objective of evading tax - HC order set aside and Revenue's appeal allowed : SUPREME COURT ; CIT, Delhi Vs M/s Realest Builders & Service Ltd (Dated: May 7, 2008) Income Tax - Assessee is into the real estate business - sells plots - Sec 145 - taxability - whether income accured on registration of sale deed or at the time of execution of the tripartite agreement? - The vital point which the Revenue as well as the High Court missed is that if the assessee has changed its method of accounting what is to be examined is that whether it has led to underestimation of profits or not? and if it is a revenue neutral exercise why should Revenue agitate the issue? - Matter remanded : SUPREME COURT ; 2008-TIOL-185-ITAT-DEL-TM.pdf + zuari story.pdf M/s Zuari Leasing & Finance Corporation Ltd Vs ITO, Delhi (Dated: April 8, 2008) Income Tax – Bad Debts: The net effect of change made in the statutory provision w.e.f . 1.4.1989 is that it was necessary for the assessee to establish that debt had become bad in the previous year before amendment, whereas now for debts to be classified as 'bad', the assessee has only to write it off as 'irrecoverable' in its accounts. If subsequently any part of written off debt is recovered, the same would be charged to tax by virtue of section 41(4) of the Income-tax Act. ITAT – Remand Powers: The primary power, rather obligation of the Tribunal, is to dispose of the appeal on merits. The incidental power to remand is only an exception and should be sparingly used when it is not possible to dispose of the appeal for want of relevant evidence, lack of finding or investigation warranted by the circumstances of the case. Remand in a casual manner and for the sake of remand only or as a short cut, is totally prohibited. It has to be borne in mind that litigants in our country have to wait for long to have fruit of legal action and expect the Tribunal to decide on merit. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that matter should be decided on merit without allowing one of the parties before the Tribunal to have another inning, particularly when such party had full opportunity to establish its case. Unnecessary remands, when relevant evidence is on record, belies litigant's legitimate expectations and is to be deprecated. Having regard to aforesaid principle, it is necessary to look into records to see whether there is sufficient material on record to dispose of the issue on merit and there is no need to remand the issue to provide a fresh inning to the Revenue.: DELHI ITAT (THIRD MEMBER); DCIT, Mumbai Vs Pantaloon Retail (I) Ltd (Dated: January 16, 2008) Income Tax - Assessee develops and sells software - CIT(A) treats it liable to long-term capital gains - Rule 46A(4) - CIT(A) admits additional piece of evidence but does not allow the AO to rebutt the same - Since the principles of naturel justice is not excluded by this rule, the CIT(A) should have given a hearing opportunity to the Revenue - Appeal allowed in favour of Revenue : MUMBAI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
M/s Wupercoat Industries Vs CCE II, Chennai (Dated : January 31, 2008) CE - SSI exemption-Paint-brand name of another person used on secondary packing-SSI exemption eligible : CHENNAI CESTAT; Navadurga Spinners Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated : February 4, 2008) Central Excise – stay / dispensation of pre-deposit – finished goods cleared under exemption, but the central excise duty paid on the raw material collected from the buyers – demand under Section 11 D – no prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. : CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Alfa Laval (India) Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I (Dated : January 17, 2008) Duty paid goods returned & cleared after re-processing under exemption notification 70/77-CE – Refund not available as CER do not permit refund in such cases – LB decision in Hindustan Pharmaceuticals 2004-TIOL-268-CESTAT-DEL-LB followed. : MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Madras Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated : February 21, 2008) Central Excise – cenvat credit on HSD oil – issue already covered against the appellants in view of the provisions of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 – appeal dismissed. : CHENNAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION Darmanian Enterprises Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated: March 31, 2008) ST - Assessee is a distributor of telecom products - gets commission on sales - Notice for registration - tax paid with interest and nominal penalty imposed by invoking Sec 80 - Commissioner enhances penalty - Assessee pleads lack of knowlege about service tax laws and being located in rural pocket, never had an opportuntity to find out about the new taxes - Since the Commissioner has not adduced new evidence for enhancing penalty, order set aside : DELHI CESTAT; CCE, Jaipur-I Vs M/s Daswani Classes (Dated: April 1, 2008) ST - Coaching service - Assessee collects advance for services before Govt notifies the same as taxable service - demand and penalty - Commissioner(A) gives cum-duty benefits to the assessee - Since an assessee cannot be expected to anticipate imposition of a new tax, and accordingly collect tax in advance, the Commissioner(A) order is justified - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Fake Indian Currency Notes: CBEC puts it in prohibited goods list;
Committee of Commissioners notified for review cases in Goa & Pune; Amends 40/2005 to omit Sl. No. 25 in Table related to Review cases; Export of rice – port restriction not to apply to 400 MTs of basmati rice from Chennai port to Myanmar sent by France as relief; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-101-SC-CUS.pdf + KVSS story.pdf M Natarajan Vs State by Inspector of Police, CBI (Dated: May 7, 2008) Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme does not grant immunity from prosecution under IPC or PCA - merely because there may be some overlapping in the two offences, it does not mean that the appellant cannot be tried under the offences covered under the Indian Penal Code. The Court hastened to add that merely because the appellant could be tried under Section 132 of the Customs Act, it does not mean that he could not be tried for the offence committed under the Indian Penal Code. There is no such provision. : SUPREME COURT; Kamlesh Bajaj Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated : February 22, 2008) Smuggled goods - appellant being a petty trader and a human being, greed of getting cheaper items for sale and making profit seems to be the only intention but it needs to be curbed - Penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, is imposable – however the same calls for reduction. : MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
ddt 14 may.pdf + displayst.pdf + amend.pdf Ratifying rebate given to goods manufactured under area-based exemption in Budget 2008 – job half done? The other half to be rectified soon? Service Tax Office – this way please; Face-off between Legislature & Judiciary over judges' appointment: Another judicial commission is the answer? 2008-TIOL-100-SC-FEMA.pdf + fera story.pdf M/s Seema Silk & Sarees Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Dated: May 12, 2008) Validity of FERA : Incidentally, the Act finds place in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. In terms of Article 31B of the Constitution of India inter alia none of the Acts specified in the Ninth Schedule is ultra vires even if it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India. Appellants have questioned the validity of the Act only on the ground of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the fact that the Act is protected under Article 31B of the Constitution of India having been placed in the Ninth Schedule thereof, even otherwise, the Supreme Court did not find any reason to arrive at a conclusion that the Act is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A discrimination on the ground of valid classification which answers the test of intelligible differentia does not attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hardship, by itself, may not be a ground for holding the said provision to be unconstitutional.: SUPREME COURT; ITAT Accountant Member caught red-handed receiving bribe of Rs 30 lakh; CBI arrests two persons, including Member; CBDT looking for JS for Foreign Taxation; Helpline For Indirect Taxes (HIT ); Govt notifies new accounting standards under Companies Act; to be effective from FY 2007-08; Govt hikes monetary allowance for Gallantry Awardees; President confers Kirti Chakras on six; DRI seizes Red Sanders at Tuticorin Port; Sahar Airport Customs seizes heroin & arrests Filipino; WB designs new AIDS control strategy valid upto 2011; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
