|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Nepal is a republic – monarchy ends - Export Notifications need to be re-written (See 'DDT'); Govt appoints three Members to Customs & Excise Settlement Commission - Mr R K Gupta (Delhi) + Mr Hari Om Tiwari (Mumbai) + Mr Jayendranath (Chennai); Orders issued; India's National Income grows by 9.4% last fiscal; Tribunal order in Bajaj Auto Finance upheld - Hire purchase and Hire purchase financing are not synonymous - Hire purchase financing is not subject to Service Tax: Supreme Court (See Indirect Tax Basket) FM says 8.1% is worrisome inflation; Revised GDP for last fiscal : Economic growth rate rises to 9% on strength of good agri sector performance; SEBI relaxes norms for registration of FIIs and sub-accounts; CBEC Chief Commissioners' conference concludes today; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
FM inaugurates Chief Commissioners conference; Clear Petro-subsidies mess before it is too late! External Commercial Borrowings Policy: Liberalisation ; RBI Notification For Oil Sector.pdf RBI enhances capital exposure norms for oil companies to 25%; Union Govt finally agrees to reduce CST rate to 2% from June 1, 2008; India's National Income grows by 9.4% last fiscal; Wildlife Crime Control Bureau to put 24x7 helpline for public; Food prices: FAO and OECD predict more volatile future; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur ( Dated : April 8, 2008 ) Wealth Tax - Assessee sells a part of the plot at handsome price - lowers valuation of other two adjoining plots - files return with valuation figures of registered valuer - Can WTO reject the figures filed by the assessee without referring the same to the valuation cell? - WTO has discretion to refer valuation of the assessee to the valuation cell but such powers are not unbridled and has to accept the figures of the assessee if the same is not referred to the valuation cell - Revenue's appeal dismissed : HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT; M/s Gobind Builders Vs ITSC, Mumbai ( Dated: March 4, 2008 ) Income Tax - Settlement Commission – additional tax and interest were to be paid by 31st July 2007. Payment made in November 2007; Settlement Commission has no power to condone – High Court cannot interfere. the provision will have to be construed as mandatory, meaning thereby that the additional tax had to be paid on or before 31st July, 2007. If that was not paid, in terms of Explanation, 31st July, 2007 shall be deemed to be the date of the order of rejection. There is, therefore, no discretion in the Respondent No.1 to condone the delay or accept the additional amount after 31st July, 2007 as the application itself stands rejected by operation of law. Once there being no power in the Respondent No.1 it is not possible to read a power in this Court in the exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The normal construction to be placed both on literal construction and/or any other mode of construction is that the payment of additional tax had to be made on or before 31st July, 2007. In the instant case that was not so done and consequently the fact that the petitioners paid the purported shortfall on 13th November, 2007 would be inconsequential and of no effect. Loss should be allowed to be carried forward: The tax payable would be on the income as set out in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act. In the instant case if the petitioner was entitled to carry forward the loss of Rs.92 ,370 /- the petitioner has correctly paid the tax and on this point there is no dispute. The only dispute was whether Petitioner could carry forward the loss of the preceding assessment year. In our opinion that could have been done by the assessee. Considering the above in our opinion the finding recorded by respondent No.1 that the tax was not paid clearly discloses an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The consequences is that finding recorded that the application has abated, has to be set aside. : BOMBAY HIGH COURT; 2008-TIOL-209-ITAT-KOL-SB.pdf + sb story.pdf ITO, Murshidabad Vs M/s Kenaram Saha & Subhash Saha (Dated: March 7, 2008) General applicability and scope of Sec. 40A ( 3). The definition of 'income' under the Income-Tax Act is an inclusive definition; clause ( i ) of sub-sec. (24) of Sec. 2 is "profits and gains". Thus, income includes profits and gains. Sec. 28 of the Income tax Act provides various types of income which are chargeable to income-tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". It is not in dispute that all the assessees in the appeals under consideration have income which is chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". Sec. 29 of the Income-tax Act provides how the income under the head "'profits and gains of business or profession" is to be computed. The income under the head "profits and gains of business or profession" is to be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Secs . 30 to 43 D of the Income-tax Act. Admittedly, Central Govt. enjoys the constitutional right to levy tax on income. The Income-tax Act also provides the levy of tax upon the income of the assessee. However, such income has to be computed in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the Income-tax Act which includes the disallowance under certain circumstances. The arguments that disallowance of expenditure u/ s.40A ( 3) would amount to violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India , rejected . Purpose behind enactment not relevant: From the plain reading of the section itself it is evident that it would be applicable where the assessee incurs any expenditure exceeding Rs.20,000 /- otherwise than by a cross cheque or by a crossed bank draft. In such circumstances, 20% of such expenditure shall be disallowed. There is no ambiguity in the language of Sec. 40A ( 3) and, therefore, relying upon the decisions of Apex Court in the cases of Tara Agencies and Anjum M.H. . Ghaswala , we hold that the section is to be interpreted by giving literal meaning to the language used in the section itself Computation under Section 80HHC : It is evident that profits of business for the purpose of Sec. 80HHC means the profits of business as computed under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". Section 29 of the Income-tax Act provides that profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Secs . 30 to 43D of the I.T. Act. Thus, whatever is the profits and gains of the business as computed by the A.O. under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", should be taken as profits of the business for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC :KOLKATA ITAT (Special Bench ); M/s EID Parry (I) Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: January 4, 2008) Income Tax - Depreciation - Merger of assessee company approved by High Court - After approval of merger, the assessee company enhanced the WDV of the assets by unaborbed depreciation - AO allows but CIT invokes Sec 263 - SCN issued - Assessee argued that it followed the provisions of Sec 13(6) - Held, in view of insertion of Explanation to Sec 43(6) by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, the actual cost of block of assets to be the WDV of the assets of the amalgamating company and unabsorbed depreciation cannot be added to the cost of such assets - CIT order upheld :CHENNAI ITAT ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Three Members to Customs & Excise Settlement Commission appointed;
CIRCULAR Export Warehousing- extension of facility to Bidadi in the Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-844-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + ADB story.pdf M/s Sanghi Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: May 1, 2008) Notification 108/95-CE, rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules & an “un-updated” MEA site – Asian Development Bank is an International Organization, says Tribunal & sets aside Rs.1.83 crores demand. Notification 108/95-CE - proviso (c) lays down that if the project is funded by Asian Development Bank, the procedure required to be followed by way of production of certificate is different. This fact itself shows that the Asian Development Bank stands covered as an International organization by the main preamble of the Notification itself. It is to be held that Asian Development Bank is an international organization covered by Notification No.108/95-CE and if that be so, the provisions of Rule 6, sub-rule (1), (2), (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable to the goods supplied to such projects. Asian Development Bank stands mentioned against the Sl.No.21 below Section 3 of the Act, United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 as an international organization Adjudicating Authority could have sought more clarification from the Min. of External Affairs instead of rejecting the appellants' claim of the Asian Development Bank being one of the specified bank to which the provisions of Section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 stand extended. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-843-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + discount story.pdf M/s Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CCE & C, Rajkot (Dated: April 9, 2008) Clearances made to Advance licence holders – additional discounts given – includible in Assessable value, but whether benefit of notification 44/2001-CE(N.T) can be claimed after clearance – Difference in opinion, matter referred to Third Member : AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Nestle India Ltd Vs CCE, Goa (Dated: April 11, 2008) ‘Milky Bar Choo' having a very short shelf life, hence clearances cannot be held up - Provisional assessment ordered. ‘Milky Bar Choo' having a very short shelf life, hence clearances cannot be held up – Department insisting on payment of entire differential duty as Commissioner's order was not stayed - Appellant making a fair offer of paying the entire admitted duty plus 25% of the differential duty and executing the bond to cover the balance differential duty pending the appeal – Offer accepted & Provisional assessment ordered. :MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Bhushan Steel And Strips Ltd Vs CCE, Ghaziabad (Dated: February 4, 2008) Central Excise – differential duty on alleged clearance of side sitting/cutting as H.R. Coils - the demands raised on the same grounds have already been set aside and the same were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present demands, are not sustainable. : DELHI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION NOTIFICATION stnot08_025.pdf + stnot08_026.pdf Mumbai LTU - CBEC issues jurisdiction notification for service tax review cases; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-120-SC-ST.pdf + sc story.pdf CCE Vs Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd (Dated: April 10, 2008 ) Tribunal order in Bajaj Auto Finance upheld - Hire purchase and Hire purchase financing are not synonymous - Hire purchase financing is not subject to Service Tax by Finance Act, 1994 : SUPREME COURT; M/s Jac Air Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, New Delhi (Dated: May 5, 2008) ST - cargo handling service - Assessee handles import cargo at airport - demand raised - Assessee argues that since they are only a sub-contractor to Airport Authority of India which has already paid the tax, they need not pay the tax - Since they are covered by the Board Circular, pre-deposit waived off : DELHI CESTAT; M/s Millennium Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: May 1, 2008) ST - Construction Service - Assessee is accused of suppressing value by not including the value of steel and cement supplied by the service recipient - Since the duty is already deposited, waive of pre-deposit granted : DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION cnt08_063.pdf + cnt08_062.pdf + cnt08_061.pdf + cnt08_060.pdf + cnt08_059.pdf + cnt08_058.pdf + cnt08_057.pdf + cnt08_056.pdf + cnt08_055.pdf + cnt08_054.pdf + cnt08_053.pdf + cnt08_052.pdf + cnt08_051.pdf + cnt08_050.pdf + cnt08_049.pdf + cnt08_048.pdf + cnt08_047.pdf + cnt08_046.pdf CBEC appoints adjudicating authorities for various Customs cases; Drawback rules amended related to non-fixation of drawback rates for goods falling under various Chapters; CASE LAWS M/s Hindustan Marble And Granite Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: February 4, 2008) Customs – confiscation of imported marble slabs – redemption fine was imposed without any market enquiry – redemption fine is normally imposed to wipe off profit margin and therefore marker enquiry is necessary – matter remanded for imposing redemption fine after market enquiry – matter remanded. : BANGALORE CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
