|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Govt sets up panel to make recommendations for setting up agencies for improving agricultural statistics; CBEC Chief Commissioners' promotion order caught in query-quagmire; to take more time; ITAT President transfers Mr P M Jagtap to Mumbai; Mr Sunil Kr Yadav to Vizag; Mr N L Dash to Nagpur and Mr V K Gupta to Nagpur; Delhi HC grants anticipatory bail to Varun Gandhi in provocative speech case; Shifting of factory - What about Input Service Credit? (See 'DDT') Crisis is opportunity to revive trade reforms: OECD Report ; Pitroda calls for revamp of education system; Model Code of Conduct: Govt postpones extending New Pension Scheme to all citizens from April 1, 2009 CBI arrests CA and tax consultant for allegedly extorting money in name of DDIT ; CBDT promotes Sachi Chaudhuri of 1975 batch as CCIT ; CBI Court sentences Central Excise Superintendent & Inspector of Panipat to two-year RI in corruption case; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
TIOL COMMENTARY No Drawback on Exports to Myanmar, Nepal, and Bhutan – Govt amends a 32 year old Notification; USA Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, 2009: A brain-storming session for us; 2009-TIOL-137-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + CBDT story.pdf V Sreekumar Vs Mala Ramakrishnan (Dated: March 4, 2009) Appointment of CBDT Member – High Court cannot sit in appeal over selection by the highest Authorities like Cabinet Secretary, other secretaries and approved by ACC: The result is that whatever way the matter may be looked at, unfortunately, the petitioner does not make it. In such a system of appointment, there is a pyramidal structure and often persons with good career profile may not make it on account of lack of vacancies. Not only that, the Selection Committee for the post for which the appointment is made is a high-powered one consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, Secretary (Personnel), Secretary (Revenue) and the Home Secretary and this selection is finally approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. Thus, the scrutiny of the case of the petitioner has been at the highest level and it is not as if this Court would sit as a court of appeal over that decision. We have to only satisfy ourselves that there has been no procedural irregularity and no injustice on account of any glaring infirmity has been caused to the petitioner.:DELHI HIGH COURT; Govt sets up panel to suggest steps to improve agricultural statistics; Pitroda calls for revamp of education system; Crisis is opportunity to revive trade reforms: OECD Report; CBI arrests CA and Tax Consultant allegedly extorting money in name of DDIT; |
- | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CBDT amends jurisdiction of CIT-II, Chennai; CASE LAWS CIT Vs M/s Majestic Auto Ltd (Dated: January 20, 2009) Income Tax - Sec 35 (D)(1)(ii) and 35(D)(2)(a)(iii) - AO considers expenses incurred for the purpose of a study and report on reorganization of core business and for improving market share and profitability as capital expense - CIT(A) dismisses asseessee appeal - Tribunal allows expenses as revenue expense – Held, the expenses incurred by the assessee for the purpose of a study cannot be treated as a capital expense - Revenue's Appeal dismissed :PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT; M/s New Diwan Oil Mills Vs CIT, Patiala (Dated: February 24, 2009) Income Tax - Sec 71 - Assessee claims a set off on account of loss in the revised return after survey in A.Y 1983-84 - Revenue contends that the instant loss is the loss of A.Y 1978-79, and as such, in terms of the mandate of Section 71 the same could have been set off as loss, only during the A.Y. 1978-79 - Held, the assessee in spite of the fire which destroyed stock/goods belonging to the assessee, did not accept the same as his own loss till the dismissal of the civil suit filed by him, and it is only after the dismissal of the civil suit, that assessee acknowledges the said loss for the A.Y 1983-84 - the loss must be accepted to have been incurred during the A.Y 1983-84 the revenue should have allowed the assessee deduction of the aforesaid loss from its income in the A.Y 1983-84 - Reference answered in favour of assessee:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-175-ITAT-MUM.pdf + aish story.pdf Smt Aishwarya K Rai Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 30, 2009) Deduction under S/ 80RR – Form 10H has to be accompanied by assessee's certificate, signed by assessee. The said Certificate has to be issued by the assessee and is to be part of Form No. 10H in order to claim the deduction under Section 80RR of the Act which in-turn is to be filed along with the Return of Income. In the absence of the said Certificate, the Form No.10H though issued by the concerned authority and filed along with the Return of Income is incomplete and does not entitle the assessee to the claim of deduction. The form No.10H filed by the assessee in the present case was incomplete as was not accompanied by the Certificate of the assessee certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Section. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings relating to Assessment Year 2001-02 had noted that the assessee had filed Form No.10H i.e. foreign inward remittance Certificate in respect of part of the receipts on which deduction under Section 80RR of the Act was claimed. But had failed to consider that the said Certificate was incomplete and the deduction could not be allowed to the assessee on the basis of the said incomplete Certificate. Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights – ITAT: Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the departments.:MUMBAI ITAT; DCIT, Hyderabad Vs M/s Satyam Computer Services Ltd (Dated: April 25, 2008) Income tax - Indo-USA DTAA - assessee is into software development - has branches in the USA - pays taxes during the financial year and claims the same as advance tax in India - AO passes order u/s 143(3) - Later the AO passes order u/s 154 and takes the view that the tax paid in the USA was self-assessed tax and cannot be treated as advance tax as such a provision does not exist in the DTAA - CIT(A) holds that it was advance tax - held, it is true that the advance tax term does not find a place in the DTAA but the fact that it was paid during the financial year and the same would have been treated as advance tax in India, it was nothing but advance tax, and no interest u/s 234B is payable as there was no delay in payment of tax - Revenue's appeal dismissed: HYDERABAD ITAT; DCIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Sigma Aldrich Foreign (Dated: January 09, 2009) Income tax - assessee is a non-resident company, engaged in business of chemicals - claims deduction for legal and professional charges - AO makes disallowance of 20% expenditure for lack of vouchers and supporting documents - CIT (A) deletes disallowances on the ground that it constitutes reasonable percentage of total expenses - held, AO was justified in making the disallowance as the onus to substantiate the same was on the assessee which could not provide supporting vouchers as it had shifted its office - Revenue's appeal allowed:BANGALORE ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s Stan Auto Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Ludhiana (Dated: February 6, 2009) ST - Assessee provides free after-sale service under warranty period of vehicles - Issue is already decided in favour of assessee and since there is no distinguishing fact in this case, assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI CESTAT; M/s Bholanath Oberoi & Sons Vs CCE, CC & ST, Bhubaneswar-I (Dated: January 9, 2009) ST - Interest - Assessee pays tax before issue of show cause notice - pleads delay was on account of late receipt of tax from client - held, the liability is on the service provider and not the service recipient - as the law casts an obgliation on the assessee to pay tax in time, any delay will lead to levy of intrest which is a civil liability which has no relations with payment of tax prior to issue of SCN - Assessee's appeal dismissed:KOLKATA CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-460-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + Federal story.pdf M/s Federal-Mogul- Goetze ( India) Ltd Vs CCE , Chandigarh (Dated: January 20, 2009) Service Tax – Service provided by one person, tax paid by another – Credit entitled - CESTAT:DELHI CESTAT;
2009-TIOL-459-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + Reliance story.pdf CCE , Rajkot Vs M/s Reliance Industries (Dated: November 19, 2008) Central Excise -Gas Turbine Fuel manufactured and used captively for production of electricity which in turn is used for manufacture of exempted goods – Benefit of captive consumption available : AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s DCM Fabrics Vs CCE, Jaipur-II (Dated: November 26, 2008) Central Excise - refund - when assessee goes out of modvat scheme or when company is closed, refund claim can be made in cash.: DELHI CESTAT; CCE, Surat-II Vs M/s Narmada Fabrics Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 15, 2009) Central Excise – Failure to produce re-warehousing certificates for goods cleared against CT-3 certificate – No infirmity in duty liability being discharged partly through PLA and CENVAT A/c when intention to evade not established – No merits in Revenue appeal: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION PUBLIC NOTICE DGFT amends SION rate for textile yarn and Reinforced Steel Wire Braided Rubber Hose; CASE LAW M/s Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd Vs CC, Tuticorin (Dated: January 16, 2009) Customs – Import – DEEC Scheme – Amendment of documents - The appellants seek to substitute CSH 1701.90 declared in the Bills of Entry for assessment of CVD on the imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff with CSH 1701.39. The appellants claim the amendment to the Bills of Entry with reference to the Central Excise Tariff and the documents that were in existence at the time of assessment of the impugned Bills of Entry. The original authority declined the permission sought to make the amendment solely on the ground that the same would entail requantification of the duty leading to a lower amount of duty foregone. HELD – Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows such amendment as this is one of the objects envisaged by an amendment u/s 149. In the circumstances, the request of the appellants to amend the Bills of Entry for the purpose of assessment of CVD merits consideration under Section 149 of the Act. (Para 3) : CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Limited |
