|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bangalore DRI arrests two persons heading for Sharjah with IC worth Rs 1.5 Crore in Rs 1000/- and Rs 500/- denominations; IB also checking out 'other links'; India's exports register 3.4% growth in March; The feasibility of International Tax Authority (See 'Legal Potpourri' column) EPCG Authorizations to DTA unit after conversion from EOU - DGFT Clarification on clarification (See 'DDT') Use of Dictionaries (See 'Legal Potpourri' Column); Interpol alerts against criminals exploiting swine flu outbreak ; ICWAI inks MoU with IMA of USA; Arvind Jadhav, IAS of 1978 batch, appointed as CMD of Air India; India can earn USD 100 bn from carbon credit projects: Dash ; Govt to roll out new pension scheme for all today; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
TIOL COMMENTARY EPCG Authorizations to DTA unit after conversion from EOU – DGFT Clarification on clarification! International Tax Authority! MIXED BUZZ India's exports register 3.4% growth in March ; Interpol alerts against criminals exploiting swine flu outbreak ; ICWAI inks MoU with IMA of USA ; India can earn USD 100 bn from carbon credit projects: Dash ; |
- | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2009-TIOL-213-HC-UTTRANCHAL-IT.pdf CIT, Dehradun Vs R & B Falcon Drilling Co (Dated: April 24, 2009) Income tax - Sec 44BB - Assessee is a non-resident company, engaged in exploration of mineral oil - gets, as per agreement, reimbursement of mobilisation and demobilisation charges for transporting drilling rigs from various parts of the world to specified locations - AO for inclusion of such receipts in gross revenue - Tribunal held such charges need not be included in the gross receipts for determining presumptive income u/s 44BB - held, the payment made to the assessee for mobilisation of rigs is not the actual reimbursement, and such amounts are liable to be included in the 'gross receipt'. It also makes no difference whether the amount was paid or payable in or outside India. The section does not exclude the mobilization / demobilization charges paid for transportation of the plant and machinery from the place out of India to the locations in India or its territorial waters. Tribunal decision set aside and Revenue's appeal allowed:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT; CIT, Coimbatore Vs M/s Magna Electro Castings Ltd (Dated: April 15, 2009) Income tax - Sec 80HHC benefits - AO restricts the benefits to 70% - Tribunal allows the assessee's appeal - held, the deduction under Section 80HHC in a MAT scheme is from the taxable income, which is otherwise the adjusted book profit. If no deduction is available to an assessee, the gross total income itself is the taxable income of the assessee. MAT scheme does not provide for deductions. Therefore, the interpretation is that the adjusted book profit of a company itself is the gross total income of that assessee-company - Revenue's appeal dismissed:MADRAS HIGH COURT; Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT, Kolkata – IV (Dated: March 17, 2009) Income tax - Assessee is a textile mill - goes sick - banks and workers for recovery of dues - HC orders sale of movable and immovable properties - deal for sale of movable properties - search - AO makes addition on the ground that the deal for purchase of the movable property was for higher sum than the one returned - CIT(A) disagrees but Tribunal upholds Revenue's appeal - held, matter remanded and the assessee to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the parties concerned - Assessee's appeal allowed:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-263-ITAT-BANG.pdf + trade mark story.pdf M/s Associated Electronic & Electrical Industries Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated : February 06, 2009) Transfer of Trade mark is not transfer of goodwill; the goodwill of a business cannot be sold without the business itself – no capital gains on sale of trade mark during the relevant period; There is one more good reason to think that the assessee did not sell the goodwill and that is that the goodwill of a business cannot be sold without the business itself. It is, therefore, inconceivable how the assessee could have merely sold the goodwill of the business without selling the business itself. What was transferred was only the trade mark. If the capital asset is the trade mark, it follows that for the year under appeal, no capital gains on the sale of the trade mark can be computed, since the provision enabling the cost of acquisition to be taken at Rs. Nil came into effect only from 1.4.2002 No undisclosed income when the receipts were shown in the accounts and matter was pending in Court: In the original balance sheet the amount of Rs.1 ,74,73,249 /- was shown as current liabilities because the brothers of Heeranand were also claiming a share in the sale consideration and therefore, the assessee had shown the amount as a liability to them in the balance sheet. However, in the revised balance sheet this amount was taken out of the current liabilities and was shown under the head "loans and advances" as an asset. Thus even in the original balance sheet, the amount had been disclosed. The head under which the amount was disclosed was changed in the revised balance sheet. The total amount received was Rs.3 ,99,75,399 /-, the excess above Rs.3.5 crores representing the difference due to exchange fluctuations. When the amount has been received through banking channels and has been shown as part of the cash and bank balances it is not possible to say that the transaction has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the Act within the meaning of section 158B (b). It is further seen that the assessee was facing a litigation in OS No.8277 of 1995 in the court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore.: BANGALORE ITAT; Godam Nagesh Vs ITO, Adilabad (Dated : December 26, 2008) Income tax - MLA's allowances – taxable – exemption of Rs 2000 only allowable prior to 2007 - Assessee's appeal dismissed: HYDERABAD ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2009-TIOL-210-HC-P&H-ST.pdf + st story.pdf CCE, Jalandhar Vs M/s Darmania Enterprises, Gurdaspur (Dated: April 17, 2009) ST - penalty - Assessing Authority imposes nominal penalty under Ss 76 and 78 by invoking powers u/s 80 - Revisional authority hikes the penalty by exercersing his powers under Sec 84 - Tribunal sets aside the order enhancing penalty - held, penalty under Sec 78 is to be levied in case of fraud, misstatment and suppression but there was no evidence before the Revisional authority to acquire jurisdiction to do so - No question of law - Revenue's appeal dismissed:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT; M/s Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad-I (Dated: March 25, 2009) Service tax – Availability of credit of service tax paid on air tickets for company officials – Services availed for activities relating to business – Cost reflected in books of accounts and considered as part of cost of final product – Matter remanded for fresh decision :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CIRCULAR Monitoring of pendency of appeals – instructions regarding; Request for comments of Trade and Industries on the proposal to modify the present abatement rates for products assessed under Section 4A (RSP based assessment).; CASE LAWS M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi-III (Dated: March 20, 2009) Central Excise – Input credit cannot be varied at manufacturer's end on the ground that supplier paid excise duty in excess – Full waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted:DELHI CESTAT; M/s EMA India Ltd Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated: January 21, 2009) Central Excise - Cenvat credit - shortage of inputs - credit debited and mistake admitted by writing a letter to Asst Commissioner - later the assessee finds there was not shortage of inputs and take the credit again - held, since the credit was availed again without intimating the Revenue and no refund claim was filed, assessee directed to deposit back the credit availed - penalty waived off and stay granted:DELHI CESTAT; M/s AVC Engg Co (P) Ltd & Others Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: November 17, 2008) Central Excise - Brand name and small scale exemption - matter remanded to examine the matter in depth in respect of all the appellants by proper analysis of entire evidence granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and come to the conclusion whether there was any brand name and whether such brand name was used by the appellants.:DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Export of Ephedrine and Pseudo Ephedrine - special measures to curb illegal export to Myanmar; Govt imposes definitive anti-dumping duty on import of Cable ties from China; IEC for Import under ATA Carnet - DGFT allows expanded use of IEC; DGFT delists two agencies from list of Inspection & Certification agencies; Recognition of certification/inspection reports/test reports issued by Indian bodies by Ecuador; Terms and conditions for issue of EPCG authorizations to EOU units after conversion to DTA unit-Regarding; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-214-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + bom cus story.pdf International Air Charter Operations (I) Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: April 23, 2009) Customs – Misuse of aircraft imported without duty, for Non -scheduled (Passenger) Air Transport Services – Prima facie, Customs has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case – this is not a case where the Customs could not have invoked its jurisdiction. The goods (Aircraft) were imported without paying customs duty pursuant to an exemption under the Customs Act on the ground that the aircraft would be used only for the purposes set out at the time of import. The show cause notice prima facie shows that it is being used for the purpose other than for which it was allowed to be imported. It is for the petitioners to point out that the allegations as contained in the show cause notice are non-existent or cannot lead to withdrawal of the exemption benefit. This is not a case of patent lack of jurisdiction in the respondent no. 3 (customs). Admittedly, the show cause notice proceeds on the footing that the petitioners have violated the provisions of the Customs Act, Rules and Notifications by allowing use of the aircraft for the purposes other than which for NOC had been granted for its import and exempted from customs duty.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; Vinod Enterprises Vs CC, Nhava Sheva (Dated: February 10, 2009) Commissioner's finding that there was no under valuation by the assessee as alleged by the DRI does not ex facie warrant re-assessment as directed in the impugned order – Order stayed till final disposal of appeal filed before Tribunal. DRI alleging under valuation and importer paying additional duty of Rs.14.23 lakhs – SCN issued by DRI – Commissioner holding that under valuation was not established but directing that the goods be assessed under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Commissioner's finding that there was no under valuation by the assessee as alleged by the DRI does not ex facie warrant re-assessment as directed in the impugned order – Order stayed till final disposal of appeal filed before Tribunal. :MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Limited |
