|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Service Tax by CISF - Reverse Payment - Request not Accepted (See 'DDT') Difficulties in processing ITR -5 return in cities where refund banker scheme is operational - manual for now (See 'DDT') Even Cabinet Secretary's instructions not followed (See 'DDT') First half of fiscal: CBDT garners Rs 3580 Cr FBT; Dispute over pay-scale: Final report on grievances in two weeks, says Navy Chief; CBEC all set for Wednesday morning DPC for Chief Commissioners; Confusion prevails over 17 or 20 vacancies? IRS officer L D Arora murder case: CBI court sentences Babloo Srivastava and others to life imprisonment; CBDT + CBEC Members all set to get Special Secretary-status and commensurate pay-scale; Commerce Secretary G K Pillai to head for Japan tomorrow for comprehensive economic cooperation pact; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
ddt 6 Oct.pdf + doletter.pdf + file345.pdf Capital Gains Tax – CBDT Notifies Reverse Mortgage Scheme; Services provided by World Sport Nimbus, Singapore to Doordarshan-CIT(A) holds consideration received from DD is liable to tax - What about ST on Doordarshan? Tata's pull-out from Singur: A blessing in disguise for West Bengal? First half of fiscal: CBDT garners Rs 3580 Cr FBT; Rs six Cr sanctioned for 25 cranes for Highway Accident Relief Scheme; IRS officer L D Arora murder case: CBI court sentences Babloo Srivastava and others to life imprisonment; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2008-TIOL-466-ITAT-DEL.pdf + oswal story.pdf DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd (Dated: July 31, 2008 ) Depreciation disallowed based on the statement of the supplier before Settlement Commission – cross examination not permitted: cross examination of witness is must before the department places reliance on the statement of witness for making the addition. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishan Chand Chelaram had also categorically held that any evidence/statement used against the assessee without giving any opportunity to cross-examination and to controvert the same, such evidence would not be admissible in support of the addition. It was specifically held that IT authorities are bound to accede to the request for cross-examination and if they do not do so, the addition cannot be sustained. In the instant case, no opportunity has been given by the A.O. to the assessee for cross examining the Director of M/s. Bermaco Industries Ltd., who had given statement on the basis of which sales was treated as bogus, in spite of specific request by the assessee. Disallowance of depreciation so made on the basis of such statement is not sustainable. :DELHI ITAT ; L & T Komatsu Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: April 24, 2008 ) Income tax – Depreciation claim on computer software, whether capital or revenue in nature – AO to decide claim the claim in the light of Special Bench decision in M/s Amway India Enterprises affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee Income tax – Deduction claim in r/o delayed payment of superannuation contribution – Claim cannot be allowed on the ground that the payments were made within the due date of filing return of income :MUMBAI ITAT ; Taj Enterprises Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: August 5, 2008 ) Assessee filed return in response to notice under sec. 148 and requested for furnishing reasons for re-opening the assessment. AO furnished the “reasons” and assessee filed its objections against re-opening. Instead of passing a separate speaking order considering the objections raised by assessee, AO proceeded with the assessment and passed the assessment order. Following the decision of Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) ltd.Vs ITO & Ors. ( 259 ITR 19 ) ITAT set-aside the assessment and remitted to AO for fresh consideration. :DELHI ITAT ; M/s MGM Diamond Beach Resorts Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Chennai (Dated: June 13, 2008 ) Disallowance under sec. 14A – Investment in shares to earn dividend which is exempt from tax – Expenditure not allowable from business income Assessee borrowed sum of Rs. 5 crores from bank out of which a sum of Rs. 3.6 crores was invested in shares of a sister concern and the balance was given as interest free loan to another sister concern. AO disallowed the interest payments by invoking sec. 14A and sec. 36(1)(iii). According to the assessee the investment in shares was made to acquire and promote a new business venture which is directly related to the company's business plans and to improve the image of the group. On appeal Tribunal held that the investments made in shares would result only in dividend income which is exempt from tax and hence the expenditure incurred for earning such income would not be eligible for deduction. The disallowance was upheld. However the issue regarding advancing interest free loan to sister concern was remitted back to AO to ascertain as to whether it was for business purpose or not. Appeal by assessee partly allowed.: CHENNAI ITAT ; M/s Christian Educational Trust Vs ADIT, Chennai (Dated: July 18, 2008 ) Order under sec. 12AA to be signed by CIT or DIT An order passed by DIT(Exem) under sec. 12AA is a statutory order. Statutory order has to be passed and signed by the concerned authority itself. The quasi-judicial function cannot be delegated upon as administrative matters.: CHENNAI ITAT ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
RLT Case Laws Headnotes CASE LAWS file no 87-Part -8.pdf CASE LAWS file no 87-Part -7.pdf CASE LAWS file no 87-Part -6.pdf
2008-TIOL-1624–CESTAT-DEL.pdf + toothpaste story.pdf M/s Wyeth Limited Vs CCE, Mumbai (Dated: August 1, 2008) Merely because Toothpaste is a notified item cannot make it assessable u/s 4A of CEA'44 - Aquafresh Toothpaste supplied to Glaxo Smithkline for free supply with Horlicks under sales promotion schemes is to be valued in terms of section 4 of the CEA, 1944 and not s.4A CCE, Nasik Vs Innova Rubber Ltd (Dated: June 12, 2008) Central Excise - exemption for small scale units under Notification 1/93 CE - exemption cannot be denied on the goods manufactured having the assessee's own brand name, while on the branded products manufactured by them of other manufactures, they discharged the duty liability as was applicable - no merit in revenue's appeal.:DELHI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2008-TIOL-1627–CESTAT-KOL.pdf + cargo story.pdf Modi Construction Co Vs CCE, Ranchi (Dated: June 16, 2008) Service Tax – Cargo Handling - shifting /transportation of raw materials, waste materials and finished products from one place to another: What that appears to be necessity of law for taxation under the class cargo handling service is that the service provided should be relating to or in relation to cargo handling by a cargo handling agency. The service provided should be integrally or inseparably connected with handling of cargo or attributable thereto without being a mere activity of transportation of such cargo since transport service independent of cargo handling is an exception under the scheme of levy by Section 65 (23) of the Act. Thus it can be said that loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and handling of cargo for freight in special containers or non-containerized freight and service provided by container freight terminal or other freight terminal for all modes of transport are subject matter of taxation under the class "cargo handling service". That apart, any activity incidental to freight of cargo are also liable to be taxed under such class. Mode of transport is irrelevant for incidence of levy once the service provided meets the test of handling of cargo in the manner envisaged by law. It is also not necessary that the cargo should only be meant for transport either by vessel in ships or aircrafts. :KOLKATA CESTAT; CCE, Chandigarh Vs M/s Orbit Apartment Construction Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 18, 2008) ST - Refund - Revenue alleges unjust enrichment - In view of Apex Court's decision in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd case ( 2005-TIOL-48-SC-CX-LB ) the onus is on the assessee to prove that the burden of tax has not been passed on to customers - waiver of pre-deposit denied :DELHI CESTAT; M/s Chattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Vs CCE (Dated: August 25, 2008) ST - C & F Service - Assessee is a State-owned PSU - set up to buy and sale and distribute liquor to licencsed retailers - Since its agreement uses the word 'procurement agent' and commission for the same, Revenue raises demand - Since the agreement is for buy and sale of liquor and refers to prices FOR destination, it cannot be treated as C&F agent - Assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI CESTAT; Reliance Industries Limited Vs CCE & C Rajkot (Dated: August 28, 2008) CENVAT Credit – Arithmetic calculations by adjudicating authority for arriving at credit to be reversed disputed by appellant – Matter remanded to original authority to verify the arithmetic mistakes apparent on record CENVAT Credit - When credit is reversed at the time of clearance of final product LPG, credit reversal on intermediate product viz., nitrogen used in the production/manufacture of LPG is uncalled for CENVAT Credit - Sulphur emerging at the time of production/manufacture of crude oil is not a by-product – Classification thereof under Chapter 2503 00 10 of CETA not disputed by Revenue – Reversal of credit on inputs consumed thereon – Larger Bench decision in Rallis India stayed by Bombay High Court - Matter remanded to original authority to decide the case after High Court delivers its verdict CENVAT Credit - When duty is paid on fuel used in the generation of electricity which in turn is used in manufacture of exempted final product, credit reversal on inputs used for manufacture of fuel not required :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION DGFT delists two international Inspection & Certification Agencies; CASE LAWS Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CC, Ahmedabad (Dated: July 31, 2008) Customs – refund – claim of refund of excess duty paid on account of short landing without challenging the assessments – Instructions in Chapter 15 of Customs Manual provided that where the excess payment of duty was on account of shortage/short landing, the importer could claim refund of excess duty - the instructions did not provide that appeal must be filed against the assessment – It was only by a Circular No.24/04 dated 18.3.04 that the CBEC issued instructions that appeal should be filed against the assessment for claiming refund – refund claims admissible – matter remanded to examine unjust enrichment. :AHMEDABAD CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
