|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Services rendered to the associate enterprises – Amendment for removal of doubts or creation of doubts (See 'DDT') CBEC proposal for second ad hoc promotion to Commissioner-rank: Law Ministry gives favourable opinion; DoP&T all set to move file to ACC route; CBEC issues clarification on 'Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations'; Interpol pats Pak's back for sharing DNA inputs for probing Mumbai terror attacks; Deepening economic crisis: World Bank fears social and political unrest; urges G-20 to take quick steps; Kharagpur IIT third year student dies of alleged negligence of doctors; Students attack Director's residence; Director resigns; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Services rendered to the associate enterprises – Amendment for removal of doubts or creation of doubts; Impact of new USA product safety law on exports of children's products; Transfer Pricing of Intangibles: A 'tangible' issue for CBDT! MIXED BUZZZ Interpol pats Pak's back for sharing DNA inputs for probing Mumbai terror attacks; Nepal's peace process at risk unless rights abuses redressed: UN; |
- | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CIT Vs Shri Inder V Nankani (Dated: February 24, 2009) Income tax - VDIS - assessee declares assets, including diamonds under VDIS scheme - same is accepted and tax paid - AO alleges that the AO fails to prove that he was actually in possession of diamonds at the time of declaration under VDIS - CIT(A) asks AO to produce evidence to substantiate his charge - deletes additions - ITAT upholds CIT(A) order - held, since the declaration was accepted under the Scheme and cheque payment was received by the assessee from the purchaser of diamond and the AO fails to produce any evidence there is no question of law involved in the case - Revenue's appeal dismissed:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; Bang Securities Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: March 18, 2009) Income tax - Writ - Sec 148 - Assessee is a sub-broker - incurs losses - AO accepts it - later re-assessment u/s 147 initiated on the ground that the assessee had transferred its profit to one of the clients who had entered into barely two transactions and made profit in both - Additions made - Held, merely because the client had only two profit-making transactions relationship with the assessee cannot be a ground for reassessment - this is more valid particularly in the light of the fact that the client in whose hand the alleged transferred profits were taxed by the Revenue does exist and cannot be suspected to be fictitious - no substantial question of law involved - Assessee's appeal allowed:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT, Kolkata (Dated: March 17, 2009) Income tax - Assessee is a textile mill - shuts down unit due to financial hardship - Dispute to settle dues - HC appoints Special Officer to clear dues of labour unions and others by disposing of immovable and movable assets - sale of assets for a price - Search u/s 132 - Revenue finds three letters from the assessee's father premises, indicating an additional payment for the sale of the same asset - AO makes additions and Tribunal upholds it - held, since the assessee was not given proper opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and substantiate that the letters seized were forged and no additional consideration was paid, the matter remanded:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-179-ITAT-MUM.pdf + airline story.pdf ADIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Federal Express Corporation (Dated: January 29, 2009) Income tax - Indo-US Tax Treaty - Assessee is a US-based cargo transport airline company - provides international transportation of goods from airport to airport and door to door delivery service - In the first year of its business in India it availed the services of other airlines for transporting goods as there was delay in the grant of permission from the DGCA - also enters into a tie-up with a courier company for picking up goods from the premises of customers and aggregating the same at airports for further dispatch in international traffic - claims exemption under Article 8 of the treaty - AO finds that the airlines carried the goods overseas by hiring the services of other airlines as it did not have permission from aviation authorities to operate its aircraft and termed the assessee's activities as courier service - also takes the view that the inland transporation service is not linked to its air transport business - CIT(A) differs with the AO - held, ++ The scope of the expression "profits from the operation of ships or aircrafts in the international traffic" in Article 8(1) would be limited to the scope of the definition given in Article 8(2). ++ That the transportation of passengers, mails or cargo etc. by the assessee in the international traffic by the aircrafts as owner/charterer/lessee would fall within the scope of Article 8 and therefore, profits attributed to the same cannot be taxed in India. Further, the profits from inland transportation directly connected with such transportation would also not be taxable in India. ++ That the transportation of cargo in the international traffic through the aircrafts owned/chartered/leased by other enterprises would be outside the scope of Article 8(2) and consequently would not be exempt from taxation under Article 8(1) unless such transportation falls under para 4 of this Article. Further, the inland transportation connected with such transportation would also not be exempt under Article 8. However, such profits would be considered as business profits under Article 7. Therefore, taxability or exemption in respect of such profits will have to be examined by the Assessing Officer in the light of Article 7 of the Treaty. ++ Where the claim of the assessee does not fall within the scope of Article 8(2), the claim of the assessee can be examined with reference to paragraph 4 of Article 8 since it specifically provides that paragraph 1 would apply if the case of the assessee falls under paragraph 4 which includes profits from participation in a pool, a joint business, or an international operating agency. HLS Asia Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 24, 2008) Income Tax - Assessee Company, engaged in the business of wire line logging and perforation operation, claimed deduction u/s 80-IB - AO disallowed the deduction - CIT(A) confirmed AO's view rejecting the evidences presented by assessee—Held, AO shall examine the total value of the machineries or plant used in the eligible business as recorded in the books, and shall also determine the value of the machinery or plant previously used for any purpose and transferred to the new eligible business with reference to the value adopted by the assessee in his books of account for the purpose of Explanation (2) to Sec 80-IB(2) as the Legislature has nowhere stated that for the purpose of Explanation 2, the value of the machinery should be taken at market value and not the value as recorded in the books of account - Held, assessee failed to produce evidences before AO due to bona fide belief and impression and, thus, CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidences or materials sought to be filed by the assessee before him and then he should have decided the issue on merit - Assessee's appeal partly allowed:DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s India Thermit Corp Ltd Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated: February 12, 2009) ST - Penalty - Original authority confirms demand but levies no penalty - Commissioner (A) confirms only demand - Matter goes to Tribunal - stay granted - Menawhile, Revisional authority imposes penalty under Ss 76 and 77 - held, since the original authority did not impose penalty without any rhyme or reason, the order of Revisional authority upheld but since waiver from pre-deposit granted earlier, the same to continue:DELHI CESTAT; M/s Indag Rubber Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-Ii (Dated: February 13, 2009) ST - BAS - Assessee does tyre retreading of old and used tyres - Assessee pleads that when there is a specific head of maintenance and repair service, it has erroneously been brought under Business Auxuliary Service - Prima facie, tyre retreading is a works contract which involves both service and material - pre-deposit waiver granted:DELHI CESTAT; M/s Famy Care Ltd Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: February 12, 2009) ST - Cenvat credit on service tax paid on GTA - Revenue disallows on the ground that the service provider did not declare on the consignment note that it has not availed credit - demand and penalty confirmed - Commissioner(A) insists on pre-deposit - stay with waiver from pre-deposit granted:AHMEDABD CESTAT;
2009-TIOL-477-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + BOC story.pdf M/s BOC India Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-II (Dated: December 30, 2008) Loss of raw materials during the course of storage in factory premises – Appeal against order of Commissioner(A) does not lie before the Tribunal: Tribunal dismisses appeal. LB decision in Super Coats 2005-TIOL-332-CESTAT-Mum-LB relied upon.:MUMBAI CESTAT; CCE, Bangalore-III Vs M/s Multiplex Fertilizers Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 20, 2008) :Central Excise – Refund claim filed consequent to Tribunal's Final Order – Duty paid after passing of adjudication order does not result in unjust enrichment – No infirmity in Appellate Commissioner's Order – No merit in Revenue's Appeal:BANGALORE CESTAT; M/s Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: November 26, 2008) Central Excise - remission of duty on partially processed goods sent to job-worker and destroyed in fire at the job-worker's premises - remission allowed and there is no requirement to reverse the credit on the inputs issued for manufacture.:AHMEDABD CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION CIRCULAR + NOTIFICATION “Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009”– regarding . Concessional duty regime extended to two more African countries; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-141-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + cus story.pdf M/s Karan Associates Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: February 4, 2009) Customs – Refund without challenging assessment – the fact that no reasoned order was passed will not make the assessment order invalid and the assessee eligible for Refund: the fact that the assessing officer has failed to pass a speaking order would not invalidate the assessment order so as to file refund claim and seek refund of duty paid on the enhanced value as per the assessment order. In other words, pendency of the application seeking a speaking order would not entitle the appellant to seek refund of duty paid as per the assessment order. It is well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd . and Priya Blue Industries Ltd that so long as the assessment order stands the question of granting refund does not arise at all. The argument of the appellant that unless an appealable speaking order is passed, the importer cannot file an appeal against the assessment order, is without any merit. Assessment order passed on the bill of entry is an appealable order and the same can be challenged even in the absence of a speaking order. In other words, in the absence of a speaking order, it cannot be said that the assessment order is not appealable. Where an assessment order is passed without giving reasons and in spite of repeated requests reasoned order is not passed, proceedings can be initiated for setting aside the assessment order passed on the bill of entry.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd (Dated: January 22, 2009) Customs – Import – Warehousing – Interest - The goods imported by the respondents were warehoused prior to 12.05.99 when the amendment was made to Section 61 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 bringing in levy of interest for goods warehoused beyond six months. Interest and penalty cannot be levied as the law prevailing at the time of warehousing would apply for the reason that the amendment of 12.05.1999 was not retrospective in operation. ( Para 1):CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Limited |
