|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Satyam Fiasco : Role of Auditors (See 'Common Basket') A new Hope for the world - President Obama in White House (See 'Common Basket') 10.8 mn wireless subscribers added in Dec; Broadband subscribers reach 5.5 mn-mark; Tele-density reaches 33.23% mark; Govt gives fund to CTRI for pilot project on alternative cropping system to bidi and tobacco; Guernsey signs tax information exhange pact with United Kingdom; Empowered Committee of State FMs likely to decide on GST rates today; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
ddt 21 Jan.pdf + Crpc.pdf + notification_internship.pdf Arrest – Cr.P.C Amendments carry out Supreme Court Directions; editorial.pdf + obamas_speech.pdf A new Hope for the world - President Obama in White House; The Satyam Fiasco : Role of Auditors; 10.8 mn wireless subscribers added in Dec;Broadband subscribers reach 5.5 mn-mark; Tele-density reaches 33.23% mark; Govt gives fund to CTRI for pilot project on alternative cropping system to bidi and tobacco; Guernsey signs tax information exhange pact with United Kingdom; |
|
||
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
NOTIFICATION 3rd Amendment Rules, 2009 - 50% depreciation for new commercial vehicles purchased between Jan-March, 2009; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-52-ITAT-MUM-TM.pdf + ambuja story.pdf Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: October 22, 2008) Income Tax – Section 80 –I -Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, a sum of Rs.4,35,52,000 /-(aggregate of brought forward unabsorbed losses, depreciation and investment allowance relating to the eligible industrial undertaking and which was set off in assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 against income of assessee from interest, capital gain and dividend) is required to be reduced as per section 80-I(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from current year's profits derived by the assessee from its eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80-I(1) of the Act.:MUMBAI ITAT(THIRD MEMBER); ACIT, Kolkata Vs M/s Bank Of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UJF Ltd (Dated: December 12, 2008) Income tax - condonation of delay - assessee is a bank - had its head office in Calcutta which was moved to Bombay and finally to Delhi - notice u/s 148 - AO writes back provision made for bad debt - assessee alleges limitation and pleads condonation of 1094 days delay in filing cross-objections - since assessee fails to clearly provide what prevented it from filing cross-objections for so long when it did file its papers before the Mumbai Tribunal, the 'filibustering' cannot be allowed Reassessment u/s 147 - A pre-condition for initiating re-assessment is to record reasons for the same which has not been done by the AO in this case - when the assessee has returned all the information in very transparent manner and details are given in the annexure attached, no allegation can be made against the assessee for not making full and tru disclosure - Revenue's order set aside:DELHI ITAT; Bosch Limited Vs CIT, Bangalore (Dated: December 19, 2008) Income Tax - CIT invokes jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that the AO allowed the deduction u/s 80HHC on gross business profits without reducing it u/s 80IB – Assessee contends that it is having export turnover in a separate unit and the claim of deduction u/s.80HHC has been computed on the export turnover which has no relation to the claiming of deduction u/s.80IB - Held, the assessment order is not erroneous as it is in conformity with the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mittal Clothing Co. AO rightly took a plausible view acceptable in law. CIT order lacks grounds for assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 - Assessee's Appeal allowed.:BANGALORE ITAT; M/s UB Global Corporation Ltd Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: November 21, 2008) Income Tax- Sec 263- Assessee engaged in the trading and export of liquor - files NIL return - AO accepts it - CIT invokes jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that the assessee's claim u/s 80HHC is wrong as it overlooked the proviso to section 80HHC (3) -Held, the loss from the export of trading goods is required to be set off against the profit which is the figure which 90% of the export incentives bears to the ratio between the export turnover and the total turnover, which is also the view taken by the CIT both in the notice and in the order u/s.263. This aspect ignored by AO. AO has not examined the assessee's claim u/s 80HHC in detail. The action taken u/s 263 cannot, be questioned. Assessee's reply not specific to the ground taken by the CIT for revising the assessment u/s.263. Appeal dismissed.:BANGALORE ITAT; Unidyne Energy Env Systems Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: September 10, 2008) Income Tax - Assessee engaged in the business of Thermal Engineering Contracts and deals in manufacturing and trading of boilers and installation of it - During the assessment proceedings, the AO found the assessee incurred a sum towards the R&D in connection with an Energy Management Consultation and Training' (EMCAT) project and claimed deduction for the same - Held, since the expenditure was incurred on a substitute technology, which was undisputedly incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the existing business together with non-exclusive and transferable rights on such technology, such expenditure is revenue in nature despite the enduring benefit attached to the expenditure - assessee's appeal allowed.:MUMBAI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| SERVICE TAX SECTION NOTIFICATION Review cases of North-East: Commissioners' panel amended; Review cases: Chief Commissioners' panel notified for Kolkata & Shillong; Review cases in Delhi - Commissioners' panel notified; Review cases: Chief Commissioners' panel notified for Mumbai; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-130-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + st story.pdf M/s Nirulas Corner House Pvt Ltd Vs CST, New Delhi (Dated: December 3, 2008) Service Tax – Management Consultancy - An ocean separates a manager from a management consultant, a performer from an advisor or a coach – Nirulas is not a consultant: The definition of management consultant makes it clear that what is envisaged from a consultant is advisory service and not the actual performance of the management function. Any other meaning to the term management consultant would render the entries relating to many other services which are rendered in connection with the management of any organisation such as "manpower recruitment or supply agency" service, "business auxiliary" service as redundant. In the common parlance also, the role of a consultant is to render advice, consultancy and technical assistance in the matters on which he has the expertise. However, the decision on acceptance or otherwise of such advice is left to the management and the consultant does not have right to impose his advice. In such a situation, it ceases to be an advice and becomes an order or direction.:DELHI CESTAT; Cabs India Vs CST, Bangalore (Dated: October 3, 2008) ST - Revenue raises demand and impsoses nominal penalty under Sec 78 - assessee pays tax with interest before issue of show cause notice - Commissioner reviews order and imposes separate penalty and hikes it under various sections - Since the tax with interest was deposited before the issue of SCN, the Commissioner had no additional ground to hike the penalty which is not sustainable - Assessee's appeal allowed:BANGALORE CESTAT; M/s Suvidha Engg (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: December 11, 2008) ST - Commissioning or installation service - Assessee is engaged in installing of heating, ventilating and airconditioning system - Revenue raises demand - assessee pays tax from 16.5.2005 - held, such services relating to heating, ventilation or air-conditioning have been specifically brought into the service tax net w.e.f. 16.06.2005. The amendments made effective from 16.06.2005 are also not in the nature of clarification. Prima facie the assessee makes a good case and waiver from pre-deposit granted:DELHI CESTAT;
2009-TIOL-34-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + hc story.pdf CCE, Pune III Vs M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd (Dated: July 10, 2008) Central Excise – Refund - Explanation to s. 11BB of the Act does not have any effect or connection with the date from which interest under s. 11BB becomes payable – Position of law is absolutely clear that interest is payable under s.11BB on expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of refund application: BOMBAY HIGH COURT; CCE, Mumbai-V Vs Shri R B Batra (Dated: August 29, 2008) Central Excise – It is settled law that if partnership firm is liable for penalty, partners need not be penalized – No infirmity in impugned order setting aside penalty under Rule 209A of CER:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Aarti Steels Ltd Vs CCE, Ludhiana (Dated: September 22, 2008) Central Excise – When onus on Revenue discharged by proving that truck numbers mentioned in invoices not involved in transportation of inputs, onus shifts on assessee to prove material received in factory – Matter remanded to original authority to decide afresh:DELHI CESTAT; M/s Endress (I) Hauser Flowtec (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: November 11,2008) Central Excise – Clearance of goods by 100% EOU to related persons in DTA – Transaction value between two entities influenced by considerations relating to cost of sales and services including procurement of sale orders and their execution for customers – Entities were unable to demonstrate that transaction values are not influenced by relationship – In the absence of comparable goods sold by other EOUs to DTA, deductive valuation in terms of Rule 7 to be adopted – No provision of law says that 'relevant date' for determining time limit is the 'date of knowledge' – Appellants deliberately not provided documents to authorities – Information obtained by department only after search operations – SCNs not hit by limitation – As per Board's Circulars when simultaneously different cases involving the same issue are due for adjudication, all such cases to be decided by an officer deciding the case with maximum duty involvement – All cases remanded to Commissioner for de novo adjudication:MUMBAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Adjudicating authority notified for Acri Monomers; Adjudicating authority notified for Kartik Traders; Adjudicating authority notified for Ayush Exports; Adjudicating authority notified for Jai Enterprises; Adjudicating authority notified for Sai Shradha Exim Pvt Ltd; Adjudicating authority notified for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd; Adjudicating authority notified for Parin Enterprises; CASE LAWS Pradeep S Mehta Vs CCE, Thane-1 (Dated: October 23, 2008) Customs - penalty - imposition of combined penalty under Sec.114(i), (ii) & (iii), 114A , 112(a) and 72 of the Customs Act is not legally permissible. Penalty under each of the sections of the Customs Act as proposed, has to be imposed separately - matter remanded.:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Regent Exim International Ltd & Ors Vs CCE, New Delhi (Dated: October 17, 2008) Customs – Allegation of imports by under invoicing – Transaction value can be rejected only if there is reasonable doubt – No evidence on record against appellant to substantiate under invoicing – Common supplier abetting under invoicing to other customers or similar case against appellant and settled before Settlement Commission previously not evidences for alleging under invoicing - Imports at a gap of six to twelve months cannot be regarded as contemporaneous when price of commodities fluctuate – Confirmation of duty demand and confiscation of goods not justified – Impugned order not sustainable and liable to be set aside:DELHI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Limited |
