|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Govt to allow wheat exports only by PSUs but private parties may be allowed to export wheat products; CBDT clarifies on New Return Forms for Assessment Year 2009-10 (See 'DDT' Column) Govt continues to mess around with SEZ Scheme + A Roller-Coaster Ride for SEZ ; Swine flu kills 86 so far; Infections spread to 43 countries; India receives first AWACS from Israel; Pranab Mukherjee formally assumes charge as FM in North Block; UN Chief urges business leaders to work for greener world economy; FM meets top officials of MoF; says measures to be put in place to fuel growth; DMK, Congress finally break imbroglio; DMK to get three Cabinet slots + post of Dy Speaker in Lok Sabha; FM says Budget to be presented sometime in July; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
TIOL COMMENTARY New TDS and TCS payment and information reporting system CBDT views this as an opportunity to minimize rent seeking behaviour; Govt continues to mess around with SEZ Scheme; A Roller-Coaster Ride for SEZ; UPA Govt and the true face of education cess! MIXED BUZZ Swine flu kills 86 so far; Infections spread to 43 countries; India receives first AWACS from Israel; UN Chief urges business leaders to work for greener world economy; |
|||
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
NOTIFICATION CBDT notifies MCX Stock Exchange under Rule 6DDB; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-267-HC-MAD-IT.pdf + mad story.pdf M/s Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd Vs CIT, Chennai (Dated: April 30, 2009) Income Tax Does the revised return efface and substitute the original return? Can the assessee be assessee in default, on the basis of the original return? The orders of attachment and garnishee notices in the present case, issued on the basis of the admitted liability as per the original return filed on 30.9.2008, may have been validly issued, before the date of filing of the revised return, on 6.3.2009, treating the petitioner as an assessee in default by virtue of Section 140-A(3). But after the revised return was filed, the admitted tax liability was different from what it was under the original return. The Act gives a long rope to an assessee to make payment, before attachment or garnishee orders. Such rope may even be around his neck , so as to safeguard the interests of revenue, but shall not be tight enough to strangulate him. The Act gives lot of scope for the assessees to make payment, ( i ) before the date of filing of the return under Section 140-A, (ii) within the time prescribed in the notice of demand under Section 156, (iii) within the time prescribed under Section 220(1), (iv) within the extended time prescribed under Section 220(3), (v) within the time for payment by instalments allowed under Section 220(3), (vi) within the time granted by the Tax Recovery Officer under Section 225(1) and (vii) within the time prescribed in Rule 3 of Schedule-II. The Department should permit the petitioner to operate the bank accounts and utilise the overdraft facility, so that the petitioner-Company continues to survive, at least to be able to pay the tax dues.: MADRAS HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-266-HC-UTTRANCHAL-IT.pdf CIT, Haldwani, Nainital Vs M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills (Dated: May 15, 2009) Income tax - Capital vs revenue receipts - assessee is a cooperative sugar mill - receives incentive from Govt in the form of levy sugar releases for free sale - treats the same as capital receipt - Revenue for revenue receipt - Tribunal allows the assessee's appeal - held, since the incentive is to enable the assessee to repay its loans advanced by Central Financial Institutions and is also linked to production capacity, there is no infirmity in the tribunal's decision - Revenue's appeal dismissed:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT; Shatrushalyasinhji Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Vs CIT (Dated: February 9, 2009) Income tax - Rule 53 - tax recovery - assessee is into real estate business - to pay its tax dues, it enters into an agreement with the Revneue for auction and sale of some of its plots and retention of 60% of the sale proceeds and refund of the rest 40% - Auction proceedings initiated under Rule 53 by issuing proclamation through official gazette and public notice in local newspaper in local language - Assessee aggrieved that Revenue auctioned plots other than the ones agreed upon - held, since the proclamation made under Rule 54(2) is different from the public notice released as details of municipal taxes not declared and it prejudiced the interests of both the bidder as well as the assessee, the entire auction proceedings are liable to be quashed and Revenue is directed to re-initiate the proceedings again as per the law and the assessee can raise its objections at the time of appropriate proceedings initiated by the Revenue:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; Inducto Ispat Alloys Limited Vs ACIT (Dated: March 17, 2009) Income tax - Sec 148 - Assessee is issued notice u/s 148 after four years of return filed and assessment completed - Re-assessment initiated on the ground that the assessee had paid lease rent on gas cylinders and also declared capital gains on sale of gas cylinders and such a deal was to claim undue deduction - held, the Revenue can re-open assessment after four years on only one condition that the assessee failed to furnish true and full information in its return and some income has escaped assessment but in this case no such information has been produced by the Revenue and it is a mere change of opinion on the same set of acts returned by the assessee - Assessee's appeal allowed:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; Alidhara Texpro Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: March 17, 2009) Income tax - Sec 142(2A) - Special audit - all four assessees form a class of companies and belong to the same group - Revenue exercises powers u/s 142(2A) and issues show cause notice for special audit in the light of complexity of the accounts - Assessees dub it as mala fide exercise of powers and without jurisdiction - held, so far as SCNs to two companies are concerned, the AO has failed to even prima facie form an opinion in regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts and there are no findings about the complexity and thus the SCN is bad in law and without jurisiction and is liable to quashed - Assessee's appeal allowed As regards the rest two companies, they do not deserve any relief merely because they have moved the HC - since special audit is already done and they have participated in hearing before the AO and assessment orders passed and an appeal before the CIT(A) is already filed and pending, no interference from this court is called for - Assessees' appeals rejected:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s Bilaspur Coal Carrier Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: April 6, 2009) ST - Cargo Handling Service - Assessee enters into two agreements for loading of coal and transportation to stockyards and railways sidings - Revenue raises demand and imposes penalty - assessee pleads loading of coal and transportation within mine area is not covered under cargo handling - held, since the Tribunal has granted stay in a similar case and the demand is partly hit by limitation and the assessee also pleads finanical hardship, stay granted with pre-deposit.:DELHI CESTAT; Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: January 2, 2009) Service Tax no Service Tax when the service provider and receiver were the same legal entity - stay granted.:CHENNAI CESTAT;
NOTIFICATION Excise exemption to continue for defence project; Subject : Power to condone delay beyond 180 days by High Court in application/appeals filed under Section 35H and 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Larger Bench decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-806-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + 11ac story.pdf CCE, Mumbai-I Vs Mafatlal U Mehta (Dated: March 30, 2009) A worried department knocks the door of the Tribunal to understand the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order only to be ridiculed Penalty under s.11AC is mandatory even if major part of duty was paid before and balance after issuance of show cause notice Tribunal. Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB ] relied upon. Both appeals dismissed.:MUMBAI CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-805-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + credit story.pdf Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated: April 24, 2009) Word immediately in rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not lead to an inference that if credit is not taken within a week or 10 days, the credit will be denied it means at the earliest opportunity Tribunal grants stay of demand of Rs.4.45 crores Tribunal observations - Inputs in question were received during the period from April, 2004 to September, 2006 but the credit was taken on 30.10.2006 and 31.11.2006 no grievance as regards usage of inputs in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products. Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 had not prescribed any upper most time limit for the purpose of taking credit Board letter no. 345/2/2000-TRU dated 29.8.2000 referred. No outer time limit has been prescribed in the Credit Rules and that there is no warrant to import any specific period of limitation by implication in view of the Apex Court decision in Raghuvar (India) Ltd. [2002-TIOL-711-SC-CX-LB] where it is held that any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has a consequence of creation and destruction of right and, therefore, has to be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. Essar Steels Ltd. vs. CCE [2007-TIOL-2005-CESTAT-Ahm] , Coromandel Fertilizers vs. CCE (Appeals), Vishakapatnam [2009-TIOL-153-CESTAT-Bang] relied upo Single Member Bench of the CESTAT in the case of J.V.Strips vs. CCE,[2007-TIOL-2221-CESTAT-Del ] relied by adjudicating authority is contrary to Division Bench decisions in Essar Steels and Coromandel Fertilizers . Prima facie case for granting complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty demanded and the penalty imposed - pre-deposit of duty of Rs.4,45,65,219/- and penalty of Rs.1,10,00,000/- imposed on the applicants dispensed with recovery stayed pending disposal of the appeal.:MUMBAI CESTAT; CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Sundaram Fasteners Ltd (Dated: January 1, 2009) CE Inputs removed as such amount can be paid by 5 th of the following month No Interest:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION CBEC amends 39/96 to allow duty-free imports to certain defence projects; Govt rescinds anti-dumping notification no 38/2007; Import of vitrified and porcelain tiles : No anti-dumping on two Chinese exporters; Govt decides to continue anti-dumping duty on float glass; Grant of All Industry rate of duty drawback to merchant exporters; Norms for execution of Bank Guarantee under specified export promotion schemes- Modifications in Circular No.58/04-Cus dt.21.10.04; CASE LAWS M/s Rajarathnam Matches (P) Ltd Vs CC, Tuticorin (Dated: January 5, 2009) Customs Recovery of erroneous refund - Review is no substitute for Show Cause Notice.:CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
