|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Annual General Transfer by CBDT and CBEC - Fairplay loses on Image Perception Index! Errors in ST 3 form – will someone rectify? Budget-making is in full swing; amended Anti-Money Laundering Act to be brought in force soon: FM; Avoidable Litigations-need for fresh initiatives; Cabinet expansion: Final list of 59 Ministers released - Cabinet slots go to 14, including Dr Farooq Abdullah, Vilasrao Deshmukh, D Maran, A Raja, P K Bansal + Seven get Independent Charge + rest are MoS; Similipal Tiger Reserve in Orissa added to UNESCO list of biosphere reserve network; Security Council counter-terrorism experts call for stock-taking; ACC grants in-situ promotion to six IAS officers ; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
TIOL COMMENTARY DEPB ONLINE - ERROR 96; Avoidable Litigations-need for fresh initiatives; Annual General Transfer by CBDT and CBEC - Fairplay loses on Image Perception Index! Budget-making is in full swing; amended Anti-Money Laundering Act to be brought in force soon: FM; CASE LAW + ANALYSIS 2009-TIOL-272-HC-DEL-FEMA.pdf + fera story.pdf Abid Malik Vs UoI (Dated: May 04, 2009) Retracted confession can be a piece of corroborative evidence and not as the sole evidence on the basis which conviction can be ordered – Once confessional statement is retracted, burden is on the prosecution to prove that the statement was voluntary :DELHI HIGH COURT; MIXED BUZZ President calls for strong consumer protection measures; Similipal Tiger Reserve in Orissa added to UNESCO list of biosphere reserve network; Security Council counter-terrorism experts call for stock-taking; |
|||
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2009-TIOL-276-HC-MAD-IT.pdf + S Nagoor Babu @ Mano Story.pdf S Nagoor Babu @ Mano Vs CCIT, Chennai (Dated: April 20, 2009) Income Tax – A busy film playback singer working sixteen hours a day fails to file IT Returns - "unavoidable circumstances"? Waiver of interest – matter remanded to Chief Commissioner: Naturally, a person in cinema industry is continuously committed to work. Likewise, in the case on hand, the petitioner had been committed to his work and due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not file the returns within the prescribed time limit. However, he had filed applications separately for condoning the delay in filing the returns for each of the said assessment years. The issue that has to be looked into is whether the reason assigned by the petitioner that due to 'busy schedule' he could not file the returns in time can be construed as 'unavoidable circumstances'; it is clear that the petitioner is not a habitual defaulter in filing Income Tax returns. The reasons assigned by him are that 'due to circumstances beyond his control' can be construed as "unavoidable circumstances". Therefore, the petitioner's claim for waiver of interest can be considered.: MADRAS HIGH COURT; DCIT Vs Sun pharmaceutical IND Ltd (Dated: March 4, 2009 ) Income tax - Assessee pays lump sum amount to State Development Corporation as lease rent for allotting land - Revenue treats it as capital expenditure - CIT(A) agrees with the AO but Tribunal sets aside the CIT(A) order - held, it is factually correct that the assessee was given a lease for 99 years on a nominal rent only to carry its business profitably and just because the deed was registered and stamp duty paid, it would not change the character of the transaction - Revenue's appeal dismissed:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; M/s Navjivan Roller Flour & Pulse Mills Limited Vs DCIT (ASSTT) (Dated: March 4, 2009 ) Income tax - Assessee is a manufacturer of besan, dal and other commodities - gets into contract with an Australian company for import of yellow gram - fails to honour the contract - Trade Association awards damages - assessee claims deduction for damages paid - AO allows but CIT invokes powers u/s 263 - Tribunal goes with the AO - held, merely because the assessee has filed an appeal against the damages awarded it does not mean that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for the same and the deduction can be taken in the current year rather than the year in which the appeal against the damages was settled - Assessee's appeal allowed:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; Jyoti Limited Vs CIT (Dated: March 25, 2009 ) Income tax - assessee substantially revises return - AO receives information regarding receipt of commission by the assessee company from foreign companies - Assessee declares no commission was received from Japanese and German companies but did receive commission from its authorised agent - Additions made - CIT(A) and Tribunal uphold AO's order - held, the commission was actually received by its Managing Director but to avoid violating FERA, he got into agreement with the company and became authorised agent for receiving commission - although the commission has been received by the MD but the same has not been recovered by the Company and it shows the tacit understanding between the two - however, there is no error in the Tribunal's decision - Assessee's appeal dismissed :GUJARAT HIGH COURT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
Special Economic Zones (Second Amendment) Rules, 2009;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2009-TIOL-817-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + st story.pdf M/s Focuz Motors Vs CCE,CC & ST, Cochin (Dated: December 5, 2008) Service tax – Servicing of light commercial vehicles not liable to service tax – Impugned order liable to be set aside:BANGALORE CESTAT; M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated: February 26, 2009) Service Tax - Goods Transport Agency service from 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 - the appellant is not entitled for refund of the service tax paid as recipient of service - the ratio of LH Sugar Factories case is not applicable to the facts of the case - the obligation to pay tax arising under the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 on those who were the recipient of services in question, was never extinguished.:MUMBAI CESTAT;
CCE, Ludhiana Vs M/s Sundesh Springs Pvt Ltd (Dated: December 10, 2008) Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - availment of CENVAT Credit on the basis of bogus invoices without actually receiving the goods - credit is not admissible - order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the credit is set aside and revenue appeal is allowed.:DELHI CESTAT; CCE, Coimbatore Vs M/s Ennar Spinnning Mills (Dated: February 13, 2009) Central Excise – CENVAT – Depreciation claimed on Capital goods – Reversal of credit - Although credit had been availed and depreciation had been claimed in the Income tax Return filed in the subsequent year, the respondent has deducted the duty element in question in the revised return which would mean that the depreciation though initially claimed, had not been availed. Credit cannot be disallowed. ( Para 2) :CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Abirami Soap Works Vs CCE, Pudhucherry (Dated: March 23, 2009) Central Excise – Appeal – Computation of Limitation - The appeal was dispatched by post within the statutory period of limitation of sixty days. The date of dispatch of the appeal and not the date of receipt thereof is relevant for the purpose of computation of limitation. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits. Appeal allowed by way of remand. ( Para 2):CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION PUBLIC NOTICE Duty refund for HSD / Furnance Oil consumed by EoU/STP/BTP: DGFT prescribes format for oil Cos to issue duty paid certificates; CASE LAWS CCE & CC, Indore Vs M/s Prem Enterprises (Dated: January 21, 2009) Enhancing the value of different varieties of the batteries @ Rs.24.33 per piece without assigning any valid reason is unreasonable and unjustified – Valuation arrived on the basis of a sales contract with M/s Shenzhen Leoch Battery Technology Co. Ltd., China, who is stated to be a manufacturer and the prices have been mutually agreed upon and hence it cannot be questioned unless the department established that over and above price some other consideration exists in arriving at this value - no NIDB print out regarding value of contemporaneous imports is available and hence, it is not known as to how the value was enhanced to Rs.24.33 per piece when the imported consignment consisted of three different varieties of batteries – Commissioner(Appeals) order sustained and Revenue appeal rejected. :DELHI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
