|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Business Process Reengineering Project of Income Tax Department - hygienic toilets in IT offices (See 'DDT') ACC approves CBEC Member panel recommended by CoS; Mr Rakesh Sharma to join by September-end; IT Minister launches 'Connected India' movement; Computing device to be available for Rs 5000; IRDA says no to extra payment to insurance agents for bringing business; India continues to get good rating by Jcra and Fitch; FM asks RRBs to play more active role and save farmers from clutches of money-lenders ; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
Premature withdrawal! Notification 108/95-CE: Is the Board's clarification on the retrospective status of the explanation valid? Revenue's overseas posts: Let's do away with 'Under-cover' tag and put a fair selection policy in place! IT Minister launches 'Connected India' movement; Computing device to be available for Rs 5000; India continues to get good rating by Jcra and Fitch; Cabinet Secy to inaugurate 'Thinkshop on next Gen MCA21'; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Two new CBDT Members appointed; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-423-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + exchange story.pdf M/s Loksons Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Bombay (Dated: July 15, 2008) Income Tax - Refund of advance to foreign buyer – exchange loss – admissible deduction: the Assessee had received 32,09,895 UAE Dirhams as an advance from the said foreign company and the very same amount i.e. 32,09,895 UAE Dirhams were refunded back by the Assessee to the said company after a lapse of almost 10 years, over which he had no control and in fact there is no dispute from the Income Tax Department that the Assessee could not export the goods because of the Notification issued by the Government of India imposing ban on the export of silver from India. There is no dispute that the Assessee had made all attempts even by approaching this Court and seeking permission to export. Ultimately, on complete failure to export the goods, in the year 1985 and after obtaining necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India , the Assessee had dispatched the entire amount to the foreign company. Refund - Commercial expediency: deduction on account of exchange loss of Rs.65,54,930 /- incurred on remittance of advance received for supply of goods and the same paid by the Assessee ought to be allowed and also it was due to commercial expediency wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; Roshan Commercial Traders Pvt Ltd Vs Tax Officer And Others (Dated : March 21, 2007) Income Tax - Petitioner purchases goods from a company having dispute with Revenue - Department issues notice u/s 226(3) to petitioner to pay the amount to the Revenue if any due it ownes to the defaulting assessee - A copy of the notice marked to the petitioner's bankers - bankers pay some amount to the Revenue - Held, If the petitioner is having any grievance in making the payment, without his knowledge, it is for him to agitate the matter separately against the bankers. As the notice has been issued strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and in the absence of challenging the impugned order, there is no illegality in the notice issued - Assessee's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT; CIT, Jodhpur Vs Smt Jyoti Devi (Dated : July 4, 2008) Income Tax - Reassessment u/s 147 - AO claims assessee had taken depreciation on tractors which was not admissible and the income escaped assemment - CIT(A) and Tribunal allow assessee's appeal - Since no fresh material was found by the AO and the Revenue had in the past allowed depreciation on tractors, it was a mere change in opinion to initaite re-assessment proceedings which is not permissible as per laws - Revenue's appeal dismissed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT; 2008-TIOL-420-HC-UTTRANCHAL-IT.pdf CIT, Dehradun Vs M/s Hotel Saklani (Dated: August 8, 2008) Income Tax - valuation of property - Tribunal allows assessee's appeal - Insertion of Sec 142A in 2004 - Revenue for rectification of mistake - Tribunal rejects the application - Held, had the Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court and the case could have been open but since no appeal was filed, the assessment was finalised and no fault can be found with the Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
2008-TIOL-1399-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + debit story.pdf M/s OM Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated : July 4, 2008) Central Excise – refund – unjust enrichment – debit notes issued by the buyer for the duty collected on goods which were held to be non-excisable – since the goods are not excisable, the ratio of Grasim Industries and Sangam Processors is not applicable – refund is admissible.:CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Goyal Synthetics (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Surat (Dated : June 24, 2008) 100% EOU – demand of duty – though show cause notice was issued demanding duty under Customs Act, the demand was rightly confirmed under the Central Excise Act – no prejudice is caused to the appellant by quoting a wrong section in the show cause notice as the provisions of Section 11AC and Section 28 are similar. Notification 2/95 CE – since the appellant had cleared the goods in DTA with the permission from the Development Commissioner, benefit of Notification can not be denied.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; CCE, Kolkata-IV Vs M/s Bhusan Limited (Dated : June 3, 2008) Central Excise - refund - though the refund claim was resubmitted with additional documents, the date of filing the original claim has to be taken for computation of time limit under Section 11 B - refund amount has to be recomputed after excluding the exports made under DEEC scheme - matter remanded.:KOLKATA CESTAT; M/s Atul Ltd Vs CCE, Daman (Dated :July15, 2008) Central Excise - valuation - inter-unit transfer - differential duty paid after finalisation of the cost audit report - no relief can be given from payment of interest as the same is a statutory obligation - however, penalty is not justified and is set aside.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2008-TIOL-1402-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + site formation story.pdf M/s ITD Cementation India Ltd Vs CST, Mumbai (Dated: August 12, 2008) Service Tax – Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earth moving Demolition Services - Project is perceived by the Sabarmati River Front Development Corporation not for the purpose of restoring of water resources but for creation of promenades, recreation parks and gardens etc. – Tribunal orders pre-deposit of One crore.:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: July 17, 2008) ST - Consulting Engineering Service - As decided by the Larger Bench the service recipient not liable to pay tax prior to 1.1.2005 - Demand not sustainable:DELHI CESTAT; M/s Chaitanya Educational Committee Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated : July 9, 2008) ST - Commercial Coaching & Training Service - Assessee pleads they are registered under Cooperative Societies Act and not liable to pay tax - Prima facie it is not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit as the assessee is providing coaching on commercial basis - 50% pre-deposit ordered:DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Customs Exchange rate for imports goods & export goods for September; DGFT corrects product code for fish and others under YKGUY; DGFT amends Note related to product code 9.1 to 9.24; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-157-SC-CUS.pdf + sc story.pdf General Instruments Co Vs UoI (Dated: August 25, 2008) It is trite that no man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities. The Rules or procedures are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of the justice Incidentally, the forfeiture order as well as the appellate order was passed by the same officer, namely, Smt. R. Johny , though the appellate order is purported to have been issued with the approval of JCCI . Mr. M.M. Kulkarni , a partner of the appellant-firm, sought permission to argue the case on behalf of the appellant on the ground that on account of several rounds of litigation, spanning over two decades, because of erroneous licence issued by the licensing authorities, the firm had closed down and, therefore, did not have the financial capacity to engage the services of a lawyer. The respondents are directed to release the CCS claim which has been determined to be due to the appellant within four weeks from today along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 7th April, 2006 till the date of actual payment. The appellant will be entitled to the costs of this appeal.:SUPREME COURT; M/s Asia Shipping Services Vs CC, Kandla (Dated : July14, 2008) Customs - refund - excess duty paid at the time of import due to EDI not accepting the concessional rate of duty - filing of the refund claim before the Asst. Commissioner (Refund) amounted to challenging the order of assessment and the claim of the appellants is required to be considered - matter remanded.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
