|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dear FM, tax exports earnings! If CESTAT Members cannot practise, why should ITAT Members? (See 'Budget Run-Up') Oman lifts ban on import of live bird products from India; Inflation turns negative with -1.61%; Maritime piracy: Interpol builds up dossiers on pirates; Increased focus on retail investors key to growth of MF industry: Bhave; Govt gives in-principle nod for exemption from PAN-quoting for investment in mutual funds upto Rs 50,000 ATF prices go up - Kingfisher, Jet hike air fares; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Clearance of scrap at job worker's end - Practice of assessment- CBEC calls for report; A simple recipe for FM to revive demand and spur inclusive economic growth ; Dear FM, tax exports earnings! If CESTAT Members cannot practise, why should ITAT Members? MIXED BUZZ Oman lifts ban on import of live bird products from India; Maritime piracy: Interpol builds up dossiers on pirates; Increased focus on retail investors key to growth of MF industry: Bhave; |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
2009-TIOL-309-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + bombay story.pdf CIT Vs M/s Swedish Telecoms International AB (Dated : June 12, 2009) Income tax - Indo-Sweden DTAA - Assessee is a non-resident company - enters into contract with VSNL, Indian telecom company, for providing technical consultancy service and supervision of installation of terminal equipments and submarine cable system - receives fees for services - claims payment received is covered under exempt industrial and commercial profit under Article III of the DTAA - CIT(A) agrees with the AO but Tribunal treats the payment as part of commercial profit exempt under the tax treaty - held, since management and supervision of the project apart from providing technical consultancy services was a part of the contract, it is very much management fee which falls under the exclusionary Article III (3) of the DTAA - income is taxable in India - Revenue's appeal allowed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT; M/s Amit Petroleum Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: February 11, 2009) Income tax - Search and seizure u/s 132(4) - Revenue finds some loose papers during the search on the premises of the assessee's sister concern - notice u/s 158BD issued - assessee does not respond to the notice - AO makes additions on six counts - CIT(A) deletes four additions and upholds them on two counts - held, addition made for certain goods returned to the supplier and the AO not accepting the credit note issued in this regard, the assessee needs to be given more opportunity to produce more evidence - matter remanded As regards the last addition the allegation is about bogus purchases and since the Directors have also admitted lack of information about the funds arranged for the same and the fact that a parallel proceeding is going on for making addition of the same in the hands of Directors, such addition is upheld in the hands of the assessee and the Directors may seek relief in their own proceedings:MUMBAI ITAT; M/s MBK Enterprises Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: March 24, 2009) Income Tax - Section 27(iiib) - Assessee takes godown on lease rent for a period of 60 years - godown is sublet to various associate concerns and rental income earned - Against the total receipt assessee claims deduction on various heads of expenditure - AO considers the income from letting out of the godown as assessable under the head "Income from house property" - CIT(A) confirms the view of the AO - Held, if the provisions of the Act have been ignored and the law laid down by the Supreme Court has not been considered, the earlier years assessments will not come in the way of the AO making an assessment in accordance with law in any subsequent assessment year. No infirmity in the orders of the Revenue authorities in assessing the rental income under the head "Income from house property" - Assessee Appeal dismissed.:MUMBAI ITAT; P C Jain (HUF) Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: April 22, 2009) Income tax - Search u/s 132 - Assessee alleges since the search warrant authorisation was issued by Addl Director of Income Tax (Inv) it was without jurisdiction - held, in view of the decisions of the Delhi HC that Addl Director has no jurisdiction to issue warrant of authorisation for search, assessment done as a consequence to such a search is invalid and set aside - Assessee's appeal allowed and Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT; M/s Poppys Knit Wear Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Tirupur (Dated: January 28, 2009) Income tax - Computation of deduction u/s 80HHC for the purpose of computing book profits u/s 115JB – provisions of sec. 80A(2) will not apply – Deduction to be computed on the basis of book profits - Restrictions contained in sub-section (1B) to sec. 80HHC to be applied. :CHENNAI ITAT; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Handing over charge of IT/ITES SEZ to the concerned Director, STPI.;
SERVICE TAX SECTION Ishvarya Ads Vs CCE & ST, Chennai (Dated: April 8, 2009) Service Tax – Advertising Agency Service – Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) – Power to condone delay – Under Section 85 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal is 90 days and the period which the authority is empowered to condone is further 3 months after the expiry of 90 days period. The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Matter remanded for fresh orders. (Para 1) :CHENNAI CESTAT; CCE (ST), Chennai Vs M/s EID Parrty (Dated: April 6, 2009) Service Tax – Business Auxiliary Service – Services received from abroad – Liability of Service receiver - Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, made recipient of service from abroad liable to pay service tax with effect from 16.6.2005. Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, which was introduced on 18.04.2006, provides that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents. Hence, liability for payment of service tax on the service receiver in India is applicable only from 18.04.2006 and not from 16.06.2005. (Para 4) :CHENNAI CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION Clearance of scrap at job worker's end-Practice of assessment; CASE LAW 2009-TIOL-932-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + box story.pdf M/s Box Pack Engineering Vs CCE, Pune - I (Dated: May 13, 2009) During period of forfeiture appellant fraudulently took credits in PLA without depositing amounts with the exchequer and cleared the goods by debiting account current – subsequently making valid payment of duty along with interest – prima facie penalty imposable u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 – CESTAT orders pre-deposit of 50% penalty. : MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Diamond Cables Ltd Vs CCE, Vadodara (Dated: April 24, 2009) Central Excise – When goods are cleared to sister unit and returns filed with authorities intimating the same extended period not invocable – No malafide attributable to assessee when the entire exercise is revenue neutral – Penalties set aside : AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Gokaldas Intimate Wear Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore-II (Dated: (Dated: February 24, 2009) Central Excise – Input credit availed legally not deniable when assessee opts for availing benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE for clearance of final products without payment of duty – Larger bench decision in HMT Ltd & Ors vs. CCE, Panchkula 2008-TIOL-1884-CESTAT-DEL-LB followed :BANGALORE CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION IEC applicaiton - name and designation with photograph to be indicated; dgft08not113.pdf + dgft08cir095.pdf Prohibition on import of toys - Clarification on BIS Standards; Import of Mobile Handsets - Prohibited; Prohibition on import of milk and milk products – Extended; Verification of new IEC Number; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-929-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Kineta Minerals Story.pdf M/s Kineta Minerals And Metals Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Guntur (Dated: January 30, 2009) Customs – Date of permission given by Customs authorities for clearance and loading of goods for exportation relevant date and not the date of boat note order – Rate of duty as on the date of permission only applicable and any change subsequent to that date not applicable – Export duty levied on iron ore 1.3.07 not applicable for goods permitted for export prior to that date :BANGALORE CESTAT; |
|
||
|
|
|
|
Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
