|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sahar Airport Customs seizes pax heading for Dubai with Rs 21 lakh cash in IC; 200 Maoists hijack train and bomb railway station in Jharkhand, to disrupt second phase polls; CBEC to finalise Addl/JCs AGT order today; Promotion order of Commissioner gets ACC nod; CBEC begins work on AGT for Commissioners too; US wine makers accuse India of taking protectionist measures; Customs RMS gets PM's Award for Excellence in Public Administration; Civil servants are servants of State and not of Govt alone: V-P; Uprooted Pakistanis from North flood UN camps in urban areas; Indian money in tax havens: SC to hear case today; PIL seeks direction to Centre to act quickly; RBI tightens screw on banks to reduce interest rates; cuts reverse repo rate by 25 basis point; Civil Services Day: Administrators need to act as managers now, says Cabinet Secretary ; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Why is Courier service not figuring in rule 6(5) of the CCR, 2004? Trust but Verify! CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-55-SC-VAT-LB.pdf + godrej story.pdf M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs Asstt Commissioner (AA) & Anr (Dated: March 18, 2009 ) When an order of a statutory authority is questioned on the ground that the same suffers from lack of jurisdiction, alternative remedy may not be a bar- Supreme Court: SUPREME COURT(Larger Bench ); MIXED BUZZZ PS to PM calls for assimilation of skill-development into education; Civil servants are servants of State and not of Govt alone: Vice President; Uprooted Pakistanis from North flood UN camps in urban areas; |
- | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
M/s Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: April 20, 2009) Income tax - Sec 147 - Assessee is into manufacture of auto parts - files return and refund granted - Notice u/s 148 - since the assessee had debited closing modvat credit to P&L Account, AO suspects escapement of income as deduction claimed for modvat credit u/s 43B reduced the profit of the assessee - CIT(A) partly grants relief to the assessee - Tribunal disallows appeals of both the Revenue as well as the assessee - held, it is true that in the case of ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd (2007-TIOL-95-SC-IT), the Apex Court has given the widest width and amplitude to the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s 147 but it has also incorporated a caveat which is as to how a reasonable man would view the articulated reasons (as prescribed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 148) which formed the basis of a notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. And in the instant case a 'reason to believe' was formed only on the basis of the fact that the modvat credit which is a duty paid on inputs was claimed as deduction, the proceedings were initiated on flimsy ground and are bad in law - Assessee's appeal allowed Can Revenue go beyond the item made basis for re-assessment proceedings: Since other items of the original assessment order have no connection with the reasons articulated for issuing notice u/s 148(1), such action of the Revenue to rope in other items for makding disallowance is vitiated in law and hence set aside - Assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT; 2009-TIOL-244-ITAT-MUM.pdf + city story.pdf M/s Citigroup Global Markets India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT , Mumbai (Dated : February 19, 2009) Income tax - TDS u/s 192 - Assessee is a research-based stock broker - enters into agreement with a New York-based organisation and agrees to pay salary to one of its employees working for it - deducts TDS on payment of salary - AO invokes Sec 40(a)(iii) and disallows payment on the ground that the TDS was deducted at the time of payment of salary rather than accural or crediting the same to the employee's account and also disallows perqusities on the ground that TDS is to be deducted separately on them - CIT(A) allows the appeal in respect to salary but upholds the disallowance of perquisites - held, ++ The word 'payment' under Sec 192(1) is important as it relates to the actual remittance or actual payment and nowhere it is contemplated by using the words that, at the time of crediting the salary or in case of accrual of the salary. ++ In section 192 the point of time at which tax is to be deducted is mentioned as at the time of the payment and not when the salary is accrued or credited to the account of the payee. ++ The assessee's statutory obligation was to deduct the tax at the time of payment or remittance and the said obligations has been discharged by the assessee and hence the claim of the expenditure towards the salary payment to Mr. Brian Brown is not hit by section 40(a)(iii). ++ When the income under the head salary is computed, the valuation of the perquisites forms part of salary and there is no separate identity given for the purpose of sec.192. ++ The concept of computation of the average rate for the purpose of deduction of the Income-Tax u/s.192 is confined to a salary computed under the head salary and no separate treatment is to be given to pequisites.: MUMBAI ITAT; TRO , Bangalore Vs M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd (Dated : February 27, 2009) Income Tax - Sec 201(1) and 201(1A) - Assessee is a hotel - enters into lease agreement - pays non-refundable upfront fee - AO for TDS on the ground that 50% sum payable is to be adjusted against this sum - raises demand and levies interest - CIT(A) holds that the assessee is not in default u/s 201(1) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194I from the amount of upfront fee paid to the lessor and recorded finding that order passed by the AO is barred by limitation - also holds that interest u/s 201(1A) has been wrongly levied for the A.Y 2003-04 and 2004-05 because the lessor has paid advance tax on the above amount of annual licence fee - Held, the order for the AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 are barred by limitation, on merit - In respect of charging of interest, no details of the tax paid as advance tax is furnished - Payment of tax by the recipient becomes available to the revenue as and when the recipient files the return. As per section 219, credit for advance tax is to be given in regular assessment. As per provisions of section 140A, if any tax is found payable by the assessee on the basis of the return after deducting advance tax and TDS, then such tax is to be paid along with the return. In view of Apex Court decision in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd. where reference has been made to Circular No.275/201/95 in which, it is mentioned that no demand visualised u/s 201(1) should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of the tax by the deductee assessee If the deductee assessee has paid advance tax after considering the licence fee then no interest u/s 201(1A) will be chargeable, as per the Board Circular interest u/s 201(1A) is to be charged till the date of payment of tax by the deductee-assessee. Hence, the issue of computation of interest u/s 201(1A) for the asst. year 2002-03 will have to be worked again by the AO in respect of licence fee. In the view that the assessee was required to deduct tax at source from the upfront amount, the AO was right in raising demand u/s 201 and 201(A). For the a.y 2003-04 the issue of computation of interest u/s 201(1A) is restored back on the file of the AO. The interest should be charged till the date when the recipient has satisfied the tax liability on the licence fee. For the a.y 2004-05- when the assessee has paid the advance tax on the lease rent, then interest u/s 201(1A) will not be chargeable in view of the Board Circular.: BANGALORE ITAT; M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated : January 30, 2009) Income Tax - Section 43B - AO disallows outstanding sales tax and excise duty - Assessee moves an application u/s 154 before the AO seeking rectification of the mistake that AO did by making disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 43B by way of prima-facie adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) - AO rejects the application - CIT(A) deletes the disallowance on account of unpaid sales tax but sustains the disallowance made on account of unpaid excise duty - Held, the assessee company having made it explicitly clear in the note attached to its return of income that the outstanding excise duty as on 31.3.89 had remained unpaid even upto the due date of filing the return. The amount liable to be disallowed under the provisions of section 43B on the face of record and added to the total income of the assessee as rightly done by the AO by way of prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) - Assessee Appeal dismissed.: DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION NOTIFICATION Commissioners' committee for review cases: Chandigarh I & II replaced by Chandigarh and Jalandhar; Chief Commissioners' committee for review cases: Chandigarh I & II replaced by Chandigarh and Jalandhar; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-03-ARA-ST.pdf + ara story.pdf Print Top Rubber Industries (Dated : March 31, 2009 ) Service Tax - re-rubberizing charges collected for reconditioning of used old rollers – liable to pay service tax: service tax is payable on the re-rubberising charges collected. However, it is made clear that we are not dealing with a situation where the reconditioned rollers are stocked and sold in the market (as and when the buyers approach) on collecting the price thereof which might include the cost of reconditioning.:ADVANCE RULINGS; 2009-TIOL-639-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + coaching story.pdf P T Education & Training Service Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: December 16, 2008) Service tax - amount collected prior to 1-7-2003, the date when the service tax was levied and service rendered after 1-7-2003 - the appellants are liable to pay the tax on the value of taxable service collected by them prior to 1-7-2003 and the service rendered after 1-7-2003 - the payment of tax is linked with rendering of services irrespective of fact the amount was received in advance - The value of taxable service was received in advance and tax is not payable, is a rigorous construction of machinery provisions - Order upheld on merit but extended period cannot be invoked.:DELHI CESTAT; M/s Tea Serve Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: March 11, 2009) Service Tax – Business Auxiliary Service – Auctioneers – Stay /Dispensation of pre-deposit – The tax demand has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants herein are auctioneers of tea and are not merely commission agents and for the reason that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 13/03 dated 20.06.03 and Notification No. 8/04 dated 09/07/04, is available only to agricultural produce and not to processed agricultural produce. In the absence of any dispute that tea auctioned by the applicants was processed, no prima facie case has been made for total waiver of the tax demand. Pre-deposit of Rs. One lakh ordered. (Para 2):CHENNAI CESTAT;
NOTIFICATION Commissioners' committee for review cases: Chandigarh I & II replaced by Chandigarh and Jalandhar; Chief Commissioners' committee for review cases: Chandigarh I & II replaced by Chandigarh and Jalandhar; CASE LAWS CCE, Belapur Vs M/s Westman Chemicals Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 11, 2009) Central Excise – Notification – Captive Consumption – Exemption for captively consumed goods is available under Notification 67/95 if cenvat credit attributable to inputs in the exempted products is reversed or paid. Dispute is no longer res integra. It appears the precedent decisions were not cited before the adjudicating authority. Matter remanded for fresh decision. (Para 3):CHENNAI CESTAT; CCE, BelapurVs M/s Westman Chemicals Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 06, 2009) Loss of goods - Application for remission of duty allowed and demand set aside by Commissioner(A) – Appeal filed by revenue is not maintainable in view of the first proviso to section 35B of the CEA'44. Loss of goods - Application for remission of duty allowed and demand set aside by Commissioner(A) – Appeal filed by revenue is not maintainable in view of the first proviso to section 35B of the CEA'44.:MUMBAI CESTAT; CCE, Lucknow Vs M/s U P Asbestos Ltd (Dated: February 4, 2009) Central Excise - reversal of credit is on inputs lying in stock on the end product becoming exempted - In view of the Larger Bench decision in case of M/s HMT, no merit in revenue appeal.:DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Commissioners' committee for review cases: Chandigarh I & II replaced by Chandigarh and Jalandhar; Chief Commissioners' committee for review cases - Chandigarh & Jalandhar replaces Chandigarh I and II CASE LAWS Sterling Prints & Conversions Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: February 12, 2009) Customs – confiscation for violation of the conditions of the Import Policy relating to restriction of disposal of the second hand printing machines – penalty reduced to 5% of the CIF value.:CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Limited |
