|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CBDT has no information on refunds - CIC asks for written submissions from CBDT Chairman (See 'DDT') Govt does not favour proposal to fix price band for steel products; NMDC pays Rs 210 Cr dividend to Govt; CBEC mops up Rs 18800 Cr service tax upto August; Industrial production shows improved growth of 7.1% in July; ACC approves appointment of new Secy for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and others; PM to meet US President Bush on Sept 25; likely to wrap up N-deal; Inflation further dips to 12.10%; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
Anti Dumping Duty on steel and fibre glass tapes – further extended; CBDT has no information on refunds - CIC asks for written submissions from CBDT Chairman; ACC approves appointment of new Secy for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and others; CBEC mops up Rs 18800 Cr service tax upto August; Indian women being deserted by husbands overseas: Govt plans a slew of measures to counter it; RBI proposes uniformity in banking charges; fixes Rs 25 for outstation cheques; Govt taking steps to reduce cost of litigation: PM; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2008-TIOL-419-ITAT-MUM.pdf + german story.pdf ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Chiron Behring GMBH & Co ( Dated : July 4, 2008 ) Income Tax - DTAA - Assessee is a German 'Limited Partnership' firm - claims lower rate of tax for royalty and fees for technical services - AO disallows on the ground that the assessee being a limited partnership firm does not pay tax in Germany as the tax is on the partners, and the trade tax it pays there is on turnover which is not on income - CIT(A) allows the appeal - As per evidence the assessee is a resident firm of Germany and it pays trade tax which is a tax on income from business, and trade tax is one of the taxes to which DTAA applies to - Lower rate of 10% as per DTAA allowable - No interest u/s 234B can be charged as the assessee not liable to pay advance tax :MUMBAI ITAT; ACIT, New Delhi Vs Smt Bala Kaur ( Dated : August 22, 2008 ) Income Tax - Assessee files return declaring loss arising out of writen off advances given for purchase of shares during the course of business - AO finds that the claim of the assessee does not partly hold good as bad debts and allows deduction of only prorated amount of the loss as the assessee was not only investing in shares but also held shares as investments - CIT(A) does not find justification for allowing only part of the claim which was accepted in the past - Held, in the light of the reasing given by the CIT(A) which was not controverted by the Revenue, the loss suffered by the assessee is allowable in full - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI ITAT; ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Satish Kumar Sood (HUF) ( Dated : June 23, 2008 ) Income Tax Act – Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - capital gains accrued to the assessee on 19.7.2002 when he transferred his rights in a property - it accrued in the assessment year relevant to AY 2003-04 for which return was to be filed in July 2003 – assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F as per which the construction of house could be made by July 2005 - a plot to construct the house was purchased as early as in March 2003 and the entire consideration was invested in the said purchase – as construction of house did not come up according expectations assessee withdrew its claim for exemption u/s 54F before the AO during course of assessment proceedings – penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was subsequently levied by AO- Held, that there was nothing on record to show that the assessee would not have surrendered the claim if its case was not taken up for scrutiny and the fact that the entire consideration was invested by the assessee as early as in March 2003 by acquiring a plot for construction of house, lent support to the bona fide claim of the assessee – levy of penalty quashed.: DELHI ITAT; M/s Jayashree Educational Trust Vs DIT, Bangalore ( Dated : April 30, 2008 ) Income Tax - Appeal against the order of the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) denying Sec 80G benefits to donors of the charitable institution - DIT objects to certain activities of the institution and thus refuses exemption - Held, In the light of the CBDT Circular on the Service Tax issue that coaching centres and institutes would not be attracting the provisions of Service Tax, in the view that 'educational institution has not been defined in the Income-tax Act and the amendment of certain clauses as objected by DIT even if amendment was made after the order, matter remanded back for reconsideration on issue of amendment and on the issue of sec.80G. Appeal partly allowed.: BANGALORE ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
CBEC issues transfer order of five Addl/JCs; Sobhit Jain, DC, posted to Delhi Service Tax;
2008-TIOL-168-SC-CX.pdf + cx story.pdf Union of India Vs Sterlite Industries India Pvt (Dated: September 3, 2008) Central Excise – interest on refunded amount – assessee approached High Court bypassing the regular appellate channel – High Court's Order set aside and assessee given four weeks time to appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) – the Appellate Authority will decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court as also those contained in its judgment dated 12th August, 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 12251/2005. Subject to above, C.A. is dismissed as withdrawn. : SUPREME COURT ; M/s Bhusan Ltd Vs CCE, Kolkata-IV (Dated: May 27, 2008) Central Excise - condonation of delay - Appeal period starts from the date the orders finalizing the provisional assessments were received by the Appellants - the date of communication by the Deputy Commissioner that the final assessment orders are appealable orders has no relevance to decide the appealable period.:KOLKATA CESTAT; Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: May 27, 2008) Central Excise - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - CENVAT Credit on catering services - since the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench, pre-deposit waived and stay granted.:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Southern Boilers & Equipments Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: May 14, 2008) Central Excise – Thermic Fluid Heaters are not specifically designed non-conventional energy devices and prima facie not eligible for exemption under Notification 6/2002 CE – pre-deposit ordered.:CHENNAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2008-TIOL-1491-CESTAT-DEL.pdf+ stgst.pdf M/s National Productivity Council Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: August 1, 2008) Service tax – Classification of taxable service - Services provided by an institution recognized by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology - Services provided in relation to improvement of process technology, economical use of power and fuel utilizing scientific principles of energy conservation and application of technical knowledge in improving and standardizing process and product quality (ISO - 9000 certification) are classifiable under ‘Scientific and Technical Consultancy service' and not ‘Management Consultant's service Service tax – Services provided in projects related to system improvement in Punjab health service, social security and Women and Children Welfare Department - These projects also involve conducting scientific study by technical experts for optimizing the available manpower and resources – Classifiable under Scientific and Technical Consultancy service' :DELHI CESTAT; Pandurang Travels Vs CCE, Pune (Dated: July 4, 2008) ST - Sec 80 invoked and no penalty imposed - Reviewing authority imposes penalty - Since the reviewing authority did not issue any SCN, waiver from pre-deposit granted :MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s B M S Projects Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Surat-I (Dated: August 6, 2008) ST - Commercial construction service - Assessee is into construction for water distribution pipelines - Demand and penalty confirmed - Assessee pleads it is not a commercial concern - Pre-deposit of Rs 25 lakh ordered :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Import of restricted items: DGFT amends HoP to allow import only through one registered sea port or airport or ICD; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-445-HC-ALL-CUS.pdf + gold story.pdf Laxman Dayal Vs CCE (Dated: September 2, 2008) Release of seized gold – Redemption Fine – based on market price at the time of seizure, not at the time of release : In accordance with Section 73 read with Section 2(v) of the Act, the respondents have to fix the redemption fine on the primary gold which was seized on 12.09.1975 at the rate which was prevailing at the time when the gold was seized. By the impugned order, the fine has been assessed at the current market value of the primary gold, which is not permissible under law. The impugned order is legally not sustainable as law permits the redemption fine at the rate prevalent when the goods were seized. Alternate no bar for High Court to interfere to prevent injustice - The alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition to do justice and to prevent injustice between the parties.: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT; Reliance Silicones (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CC (I), Nhava Sheva (Dated: June 9, 2008) Customs - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - mis-use of advance licence scheme - the balance sheet of the company shows high sale income - no prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. : MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
