|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Assessment of Banks - deduction to rural branches- CBDT instructions; Income Tax – Audit – take action against erring accountants - CBDT (See 'DDT') Service Tax - Renting of immovable Property - Bombay High Court Relief (See 'DDT') After AP High Court, Bombay HC also stays clearances to SEZ '; About 148 devotees die in Naina Devi temple stampede in HP; Rupee Export Credit Interest Rates - interest rate subvention on export credit – Scheme to end on Sept 30; Shipping Corporation joins elite Navratna club as 17th Member; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
Export Duty on Steel products to SEZ High Court Ruling; The Triumph of Equity; Enforceability of Section 5A(1A) of the CEA'44 A few random thoughts! 2008-TIOL-144-SC-CT.pdf + up story.pdf CST, UP Vs M/s Hind Lamps Ltd (Dated: July 31, 2008 ) UP TRADE TAX assessee cannot make adjustments against amounts which he thinks refunds are due: - The expression used is "found to be refundable". In other words, it must be as a result of adjudication. The amount has to be found to be refundable. In the instant case, there is no such adjudication. Even otherwise, the power of adjustment lies with the authority under the Statute. While granting refund, he has to first find out whether there is any amount which has to be adjusted against tax or other amounts outstanding against the dealer under the Act or the Central Act and the balance has to be refunded. This power of adjustment lies only with the authority under the Statute. The dealer cannot make any adjustment on his own, and not certainly under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act as has been held by the High Court. The Explanation I makes the position further clear that the date of refund shall be deemed to be the date on which first intimation regarding preparation of the refund voucher is sent to the dealer in the prescribed manner. Obviously, therefore, date of refund is relatable to the intimation regarding the preparation of the refund voucher. Explanation II shows that the expression "refund" includes the adjustment which is permissible under the proviso to sub-section (1). It is to be noted that the manner in which the refund has to be granted is provided in Rules 89 and 90 appearing in Chapter XV:SUPREME COURT; Exchange Earner's Foreign Currency (EEFC) Account; Advance Remittance for Import of Rough Diamonds; Shipping Corporation joins elite Navratna club as 17th Member; IIT, Rajasthan inaugurated by MoS(HE); Chief Justice calls for enhancement in efficiency of Tribunal ; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Cos set up for welfare and economic upliftment of ex-servicemen: No exemption from TDS on contractual payments' Sec 10 benefits: Sikkimese individuals exempted from tax; Income Tax Audit take action against erring accountants- CBDT; Assessment of Banks - Allowance of deduction to rural branches; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-353-ITAT-MUM.pdf + holland story.pdf DDIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Sun Chemicals BV ( Dated : June 27, 2008 ) Income Tax - Assessee is a non-resident - purchase and sale of shares held by associated enterprises - adjustment of long-term capital gains loss againt short-term capital gains - AO refers matter to TPO - makes additions based on higher share price for acquistion - assessee contends acquisition of shares is beyond the purview of Sec 92C - Revenue disallows - assessee raises alternate contention for availing benefits under DTAA - AO disallows on the ground that the 'tax' for the benefit of DTAA shall not include any amount which is payable in respect of any default or omission in relation to the taxes to which the convention applies - CIT(A) agrees with the AO on higher acquisition price of shares but allows DTAA benefits under which capital gains are specifically exempted - the default or omission relating to the provisions of section 92 to 92F of the Act are not covered by the default or omission mentioned in Article 3(d) of DTAA - CIT(A) order upheld - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT; ACIT, Lucknow Vs M/s Sahara India ( Dated : May 30, 2008 ) Income Tax - Deduction for travelling expenses - Tax audit report shows excess over the permissible limit under Rule 6D and since payments were made through credit cards the bills therefore are not available - AO concludes that the extent of the expenses under the above head which were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business was not ascertainable. He, therefore, considered that 50% of the amount should be disallowed under section 37(1) as not being incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes - CIT (Appeals) held that it would be reasonable if 5% of the total expenditure is disallowed to cover (a) expenditure incurred for non-business purposes; and (b) expenses incurred in excess of the permissible limit under Rule 6D - Even so the break-up of the travelling expenses shows that there are items, such as, fixed conveyance allowance, car parking and LTC. To disallow 50% of these payments may not be justified. Disallowance of 10% out of the travelling and conveyance expenses and the local conveyance expenses would meet the requirements of the case - Revenue Appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT; Premchand Kothari Vs ITO, Hyderabad ( Dated :May 16, 2008 ) When the entire source of income was concealed from the department, there is no question of disclosing the income therefrom : . There is no reason to believe that the assessee would have disclosed this fact to the department till he was compelled to do so. After all, what is brought to tax as unexplained investment is only the peak credit and nothing more. Therefore, at least to the extent of Rs. 2 ,50,642 being the peak credit addition sustained by the Tribunal, the penalty is exigible . So far as the addition of Rs.1 lakh is concerned, it would be unreasonable to sustain the penalty. When the entire source of income was concealed from the department, there is no question of disclosing the income therefrom . The assessee is already being penalized for concealing the source of income and this in our view, should suffice to cover both the additions. : HYDERABAD ITAT; Jashan Textile Mills Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : July 08, 2008 ) Income Tax - Sec 80HHC Vs Sec 80IA - In view of consistent view of the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal and the Madras HC decision overruling the Special Bench decision in the case of Rohini Garments, the deduction u/s 80IA not to be deducted from the deductible u/s 80HHC - Revenue's appeal rejected: MUMBAI ITAT; Maheshwari Plaza Resorts Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Hyderabad (Dated: May 29, 2008) The CIT ( A) has gone on super technicality and on a very venial ground: The substance of the matter is that the delay was caused on account of genuine reasons and it is immaterial if in the affidavit Finance Manager was mentioned instead of DGM ( F&A ). The latter is a specific designation whereas the former is generic in nature. The CIT ( A) has gone on super technicality and on a very venial ground has denied the assessee its substantial right of appeal. Accordingly we condone the delay and restore the matter to the file of the CIT ( A) with the direction to decide the issues on merits after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.: HYDERABAD ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
2008-TIOL-376-HC-MAD-CX.pdf + credit hc story.pdf CCE, Pondicherry Vs CESTAT & M/s Sunpack (Dated: July 10, 2008) Central Excise- CENVAT Credit - Factory shifted to new premises available credit with inputs can be transferred Tribunal decision in 2007-TIOL-1693-CESTAT-MAD - MAD upheld- it is clear that the capital goods, the inputs and the balance unutilsied credit balance in question have been properly received and accounted for by the assessee in the respective registers. The Rule does not require that the assessee can transfer the credit corresponding only to the quantum of inputs transferred to the new factory, but permits the assessee to transfer the available credits along with inputs and capital goods in stock at the factory to the new location. Thus, requirement of Rule 8 has been fulfilled by the assessee: MADRAS HIGH COURT; CCE & CC, BBSR-I Vs M/s Birla Tyres ( Dated: May 13, 2008 ) Central Excise valuation cash discounts are allowed as deduction even if some buyers did not avail the discounts freight charges from the depot to the place of delivery are not includable: KOLKATA CESTAT; M/s Avon Healthcare Vs CCE, Daman ( Dated: May 15, 2008 ) Central Excise remission of duty coconut oil packed in bottles damaged in heavy floods - remission cannot be rejected merely because the appellant has been able to salvage some part of the oil: MUMBAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION Retailers Association Of India & Others Vs Union Of India & Others ( Dated : July 30, 2008 ) ST - Renting of immovable property - Since similar cases being moved to the Supreme Court, petitioners directed to furnish undertaking that once their challenge is disallowed, they would pay the tax as per the law : BOMBAY HIGH COURT; M/s Banswara Syntex Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-II ( Dated: April 4, 2008 ) ST - Cenvat credit - Assessee manufactures excisable goods - utilises credit for paying ST on GTA service - Demand - while paying service tax on GTA service availed in connection with removal of final product from factory, assessee was doing so on an 'output service' and therefore, they were entitled to utilize for payment of service tax on such service: DELHI CESTAT; M/s Shaurya Ex-Servicemen Security Services (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Patna ( Dated: May 13, 2008 ) Service Tax condonation of delay of 482 days - the causes of delay do not appeal to condone the same and the COD application is without any substance - nothing transpires from any evidence to reflect the bonafide of the Appellant in regard to delay of 482 days in filing the Appeal COD application rejected: KOLKATA CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Anti-dumping duty on vitrified & porcelain tiles: Import from M/s Foshan from China exempted; CBEC amends 102/2007 related to filing of refund claim for addl duty of customs paid on imported goods; CASE LAWS M/s Confidence Petroleum India Ltd Vs Union of India ( Dated: July 31, 2008 ) Export duty on clearances to SEZ: Stay granted for three weeks: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT; 2008-TIOL-1239-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + evergreen story.pdf CC, Nhava Sheva Vs Evergreen (India) Pvt Ltd ( Dated: June 20, 2008 ) Totally frivolous ROM application by Revenue Tribunal says it is a figment of imagination and dismisses the same . To apprehend that setting aside of the impugned order would mean setting aside of the penalty upon the respondents (against which the Revenue has not and could not have filed an appeal) is a figment of imagination as the order of the Tribunal is very clear that it is confined to holding that the goods are to be confiscated. Nothing has been said about penalty in the final order of the Tribunal - ROM application dismissed as not required, by Tribunal: MUMBAI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1236-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + BG story.pdf CC (Airport) Chennai Vs Kothari Sugars And Chemicals Ltd ( Dated: February 8, 2008 ) Encashment of bank guarantee is not the same as payment of duty Refund provisions under Section 27 of Customs Act not applicable No time limit to recredit the assessee Apex Court decision in Oswal Agro Mills followed Appeal filed by the revenue untenable hence dismissed - CESTAT: CHENNAI CESTAT; Ghanshyam Metal Udyog Vs CC, Kandla ( Dated: May 14, 2008 ) Customs confiscation of goods wrongly sent by the foreign supplier since the goods have been imported as a result of bona fide mistake, contrary to the importer's instructions, it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty or redemption fine: MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
