|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Exports duty on clearances to SEZ: Story behind the petition to seek HC stay! (See 'DDT') Govt unfolds guidelines for 3G and BWA services; Govt says no curbs on release of new LPG connections; Govt appoints new CJs for Orissa and Jharkhand HCs & Addl Judges for Bombay, Madras & Allahabad HCs (See 'Mixed Buzz') P K Rastogi takes over as new Steel Secretary; Veteran leader Harkishan Singh Surjeet is no more; Ashwini Kumar of 1973 batch to be next CBI Chief ; Inflation goes up to 11.98 per cent for week ending on July 12th; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
AP High Court stays export duty on clearances to SEZs so does Madras High Court ; RBI liberalises foreign currency norms for project offices ; Govt unfolds guidelines for 3G and BWA services; E-returns: Number jumps from 1.5 lakh last year to 12.5 lakh this fiscal ; Govt appoints new CJs for Orissa and Jharkhand HCs & Addl Judges for Bombay, Madras & Allahabad HCs; India's exports up by 23.5% in June 2008; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Coromandel Engineering Co Ltd (Dated: July 9, 2008 ) Income Tax - assessee is a contractor - retention money - Issue is no longer res integra as retention money is not taxable until the project is completed and the money is paid to the assessee : MADRAS HIGH COURT; CIT, Vs M/s Star Chemicals (Bombay) P Ltd ( Dated: February 27, 2008 ) Income Tax - Bad debt - Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Revenue disallows - As per the Board Circular it is allowable in the year bad debts are written off as irrecoverable in the accounts - No fault with the Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed :MUMBAI HIGH COURT; CIT, Vs Reliance Electronics Industries India Limited ( Dated: July 16, 2008 ) Income Tax - Assessee is TV sets manufacturer - valuation of closing stocks - assessee depreciates the value of huge stocks - AO suspects manipulation of records - Valuation report furnished - but additions made - CIT(A) deletes it on the basis of Chartered Engineer's statement - Tribunal upholds the order - Since the assessee is into a type of business where technological obsolescence is well known and the Revenue has failed to find defect with the valuation report - Revenue's appeal dismissed :DELHI HIGH COURT; 2008-TIOL-347-ITAT-DEL-SB.pdf + SB story.pdf Shri Manoj Aggarwal Vs DCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : July 25, 2008 ) Immunity given by Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1997 incorporating VDIS is limited to the extent that the existence of jewellery stands accepted and the amount credited in the books of the declarant to the extent of value of the jewellery so declared cannot be assessed as income of the declarant for any assessment year under any provision of the Income-tax Act including the provisions of Section 68. This immunity, however, stops there and there is no provision in the scheme to extent the same further, either expressly or even by implication, to cover the sale of jewellery declared under VDIS also. Fiscal Laws have to be interpreted reasonably: Unless the photocopies of the seized records are provided to the assessee, it will not be possible for him to compute the undisclosed income and file the block return. This is a practical difficulty which has to be taken note of since tax laws, like any other laws, have to be interpreted reasonably. Chapter XIV-B is a complete code by itself providing for the mode and manner of making an assessment in cases of search as different from a regular assessment. It covers two types of persons: firstly, the person searched: secondly, the persons not searched and in respect of whom the search material discloses the existence of undisclosed income in their hands. Section 158BC provides the procedure of making an assessment in the case of the person searched and section 158BD provides the mode and manner of making an assessment in the case of a person not searched but in respect of whom there is discovery of undisclosed income in his hands. We have the benefit of the various decisions, including that of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this subject and of Hon'ble High Courts rendered from time to time including our jurisdictional High Court which serve as a guide to us and such catena of case laws on the subject gives a clue as to what this chapter is intended for. :DELHI ITAT (SPECIAL BENCH ) ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
rtl087-Part1.pdf + rtl087-Part2.pdf + rtl087-Part3.pdf RLT Case Laws Headnotes;
2008-TIOL-1226-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + infra story.pdf CCE, Raigad Vs Infra Inds Ltd ( Dated: July 8, 2008 ) When the issue concerns valuation of goods, it is not proper on the part of the adjudicating authority to shirk from dealing with excisability of the product Commissioner(A) has rightly decided this primary issue O-in-A does not travel beyond SCN :MUMBAI CESTAT; CCE, Pune-II Vs M/s Manugraph India Ltd ( Dated: January 31, 2008 ) Inputs sent for job work Scrap generated at the job worker's end not returned to the principal (assessee) CENVAT credit attributable to this scrap not reversible by the principal in as much as casting but not scrap is the input Revenue appeal dismissed :MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Poly Spinning Mills Vs CCE, Chennai - II (Dated: April 29, 2008) Central Excise SSI exemption denial of exemption on the ground that the assessee had availed both CENVAT Credit and exemption - the department was aware of the assessee availing SSI exemption as early as on 22.1.97 and the demand notice dated 26.10.98 for the short-levy occurred in the year 96-97 is time barred. :CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Carborundum Universal Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai-I (Dated: March 7, 2008) Excess duty collected by the dealers Patently erroneous to fasten the liability on the manufacturer; excess amount Assessee not liable under Section 11D In this factual situation, it is patently erroneous to fasten a liability on the appellants in terms of Section 11D whereas they were not found to have collected any amount representing the same as duty in excess of the actual duty paid. In the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable (Para 5) :CHENNAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2008-TIOL-1220-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + stgst.pdf M/s Nawanshahr Co-Operative Sugar Mills & Ors Vs CCE, Jallandhar/ Chandigarh & Vice Versa (Dated: June 20, 2008) Service Tax - Storage of a specified quantity of free sale Sugar by Sugar Mills as per Government : DELHI CESTAT; M/s HRJ Steels (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Meerut-I (Dated: June 2, 2008) ST - C & F Agent - Mere procuring of orders for the principal is not C & F service : DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION 46/2008 rescinded; Govt imposes definitive anti-dumping duty on Diclofenac Sodium; CBEC revises tariff value of poppy seeds and brass scrap; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-1222-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + eo story.pdf M/s Bharat Starch Industries Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: April 15, 2008) Discharge of export obligation certified by the DGFT - Bond and bank guarantee cancelled by Customs - Nothing survives to be decided in this case Commissioner's order for demand of duty, confiscation and penalty not sustainable Appeal allowed In view of the discharge of export obligation as certified by the DGFT and the cancellation of the bond and the bank guarantee by the Customs Authorities, nothing survives to be decided in this case. The demand of duty raised on the company by the Commissioner on the stated ground of non-fulfillment of export obligation is no longer sustainable (Para 3) :CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd Vs CC, (Import), Nhava Sheva (Dated: May 19, 2008) Customs valuation - additional duty paid on enhancement of value which was set aside by the Tribunal earlier refund of the duty paid the appellant was not an aggrieved party in Order In-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner the material points were not discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals) matter remanded. :MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
