|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
What is NIDB? (See 'DDT') MoF rebuts economic slowdown theory based on direct taxes mop-up; More than 49% FDI in Commodity bourses: Govt allows correction time for dilution; Govt to release Rs 22000 Cr fert subsidy bill soon; Petro Ministry moots proposal for dual pricing of diesel; Industrial consumers to face the brunt; Petro Minister pulls up oil companies; asks them to clear LPG wait-listed applications within 60 days; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
'Late Cuts' and 'short Cuts' - Last date of filing of application for Duty Credit Scrips – DGFT clarifies; India: The callousness compounded! Import of Roller Drawer Sliders (Telescopic/Ball Bearing Type) – Delhi Customs valuation study; Govt to release Rs 22000 Cr fert subsidy bill to industry soon; More than 49% FDI in Commodity bourses: Govt allows correction time for dilution; MoF rebuts economic slowdown theory based on direct taxes mop-up; Calling cards: TRAI sends recommendations for healthy tariff and competition ; HM Revenue and Customs goes on DTAT-signing spree; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2008-TIOL-152-SC-IT.pdf + sc it story.pdf CIT, Ahmedabad Vs Gold Coin Health Foods Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 18, 2008 ) Penalty was leviable even in a case where addition of concealed income reduces the returned loss. “When the word "income" is read to include losses, it becomes crystal clear that even in a case where on account of addition of concealed income the returned loss stands reduced and even if the final assessed income is a loss, still penalty was leviable thereon even during the period 1.4.1976 to 1.4.2003. Even in the Circular dated 24.7.1976, the position was clarified by Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is stated that in a case where on setting of the concealed income against any loss incurred by the assessee under any other head of income or brought forward from earlier years, the total income is reduced to a figure lower than the concealed income or even to a minus figure the penalty would be imposable because in such a case "the tax sought to be evaded" will be tax chargeable on concealed income as if it is "total income". Law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. - Virtual Soft Systems over-ruled: Law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. It is of relevance to note that when any loss is returned in any return it need not necessarily be the loss of the concerned previous year. It may also include carried forward loss which is required to be set up against future income under Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, the applicable law on the date of filing of the return cannot be confined only to the losses of the previous accounting years.: SUPREME COURT LARGER BENCH; M/s R B K Securities Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai ( Dated : July 21, 2008 ) Income Tax - Assessee deals in derivative instrument - incurs losses and treats it as business loss - AO treats it as speculation loss - CIT(A) confirms it - Issue is no longer res integra as coordinate benches have held that the derivative is a separate kind of transaction which does not involve any purchase and sale of shares and therefore loss on account of derivative trading cannot be treated as speculative loss to the assessee. The implied delivery has already been accepted as actual delivery within the meaning of provisios of Sec 43(5) - Assessee's appeal allowed :MUMBAI ITAT; JCIT, New Delhi Vs Khanna And Anndhanam ( Dated : January 18, 2008 ) Anything which can properly be described as Income as Income is taxable - IT will take in voluntry and Gratuitous payments connected with office, vocation or occuption. Firm of Chartered Accountants – Received Rs. 115 lakhs from Deloitte Touche Tohmatu International (DTTI) during the year. According to assessee, the receipt is capital in nature since it represents compensation for the sterilization of future professional earnings since the withdrawal of assessee from the concurrent membership of DHS/DTTI has resulted in substantial impairment to the profit making apparatus. Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act. Even if a receipt does not fall within the ambit of any of the sub-clauses of sec. 2(24), it may still be income if it partakes of the nature of the income. It will take in voluntary and gratuitous payments, which are connected or linked with the office, vocation or occupation. According to tribunal, assessee received payment to facilitate orderly transfer of DTTI clients, files etc. to the DHS firm to be reconstituted. The same was measured in the form of three times of net profit that the assessee will realize in connection with DTTI referred international work ie. the profit from the portion of work which is recurring and will be lost due to the withdrawal from DTTI. This payment came to assessee in the course of existing business / profession and hence it will constitute income chargeable to tax. Revenue appeal allowed.:DELHI ITAT; M/s Hughes Escorts Communication Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : June 27, 2008 ) Income tax – Re-statement of liability in foreign exchange – Since loss is in the revenue account on account of trading liability, deduction allowable under s. 43(a) – Payment of additional customs duty on import of goods allowable as deduction – Software development expenses are revenue in nature since the software is neither durable in nature nor a revenue earning apparatus, to be treated as revenue expenditure only - Depreciation on computer software is to be @ 60% under the head ‘computers' and not under the head ‘plant and machinery' Income tax – Payment of bonus – Disallowance due to lack of evidence – AO to consider additional evidence and decide the case following principles of natural justice:DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
2008-TIOL-1344-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + appeal story.pdf Associated Film Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-V (Dated: July 11, 2008) An appeal lies not against the finding but against the order – Issue of marketability can be taken in subsequent proceedings:MUMBAI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1343-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: April 23, 2008) Dealer has not informed the change of address to the Department or Appellant – Credit availed on such dealer invoices not deniable when inputs suffered duty and duty paying nature of the inputs not denied – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted – CESTAT:BANGALORE CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1342-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Healthline (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: June 22, 2008) Central Excise – Delay in appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) - Finalization of Accounts by assessee – Sufficient ground for delay in filing of appeal:BANGALORE CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2008-TIOL-1339-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + bsnl story.pdf M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs CCE, Pune II (Dated: July 23, 2008) BSNL Service Tax case – Terms “Guaranteed Public Telephone” and “Local Calls” are highly technical terms not decipherable by Revenue – Department of Telecommunications is the appropriate authority to resolve the conflict -Tribunal remands the case and endorses copy to Revenue Secretary and Secretary, DoT:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Kirloskar Power Equipments Limited Vs CCE, Pune-III (Dated: June 20, 2008) ST - Demand and penalty - Reviewing authority enhances penalty - Since no SCN was issued before enhancing the penalty as provided under Sec 84 of the Finance Act, it is a violation of principle of natural justice - Pre-deposit waiver granted:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Middle East Oil Co Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated: June 20, 2008) ST - Assessee defaults in paying tax - Tax with interest deposited - Penalty imposed - Reviewing authority enhances penalty as per provisions of Sec 84 - Since the case pertains to the period when amnesty scheme was operational and since the tax with interest was deposited, there was no justification to enhance penalty - Reviewing authority order set aside and the assessee directed to deposit penalty originally imposed by the adjudicating authority under Ss 76 and 77:MUMBAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Muli Bamboo freely exportable upto March 2010; Prohibition on export of Edible Oils – Relaxation ; Export of non-basmati rice: Nature of restrictions; DGFT allows supporting manufacturer to claim benefits of FMS, FPS & VKGU; Units located in multi-product SEZ: DGFT authorises DC to issue IEC; Units in single product SEZ to go to local Jt DGFT office; VKGUY: Benefits allowed to hand-made carpets of jute, cotton etc; Import of rough marble: DGFT hikes quantity eligible for current fiscal.; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-1341-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Bennet Coleman story.pdf M/s Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: July 4, 2008) Customs – Refund of Special Additional Duty – Applicability of Notification No. 20/2006-CUS - Imported goods are assessed to higher Customs Duty only on account of omission by the assessing officer – Duty of the Assessing officer to take note of relevant customs notification – Assessment can be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 without taking recourse to appellate remedies provided in the Customs Act - If the importer is compelled to pay huge revenue, for the fault of Assessing Officer it would definitely amount to mis-carriage of justice:BANGALORE CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1340-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Midwest Granite Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Hyderabad-II (Dated: May 26, 2008) Customs – Valuation of imported goods – Valuation Rules have to be applied sequentially - Revenue has not adduced any reasons for adoption of value under Rule 8 – Original authority accepted the certificate of competent authority for concessional rate under ISFTA – Transaction Value declared to be accepted:BANGALORE CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
