|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Subramanyam, IAS who died with YSR was an IRS officer - RADHA ARUN pays a Tribute; DGFT adds Telecom Equipment & Services Export Promotion Council in Appendix 2; SEZ Act: MoC clarifies no agency can carry out search and seizure without DC's approval + lists out default authorised operations for SEZ developers + lays down procedure for sending proposals to BoA; CBEC two-day meet to deliberate on GST and department's preparedness; MoF topbrass to give first ever comprehensive presentation on GST to Finance Minister today; India, Australia decide to cooperate in mining sector ; TRU invites application for Director Post in Board; Commercial Training or Coaching Services: Taxing education! |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Subramanyam, IAS who died with YSR was an IRS officer – RADHA ARUN pays a Tribute; Death Dance of DTC: After trimming CBDT's powers, Settlement Commission is proposed to be guillotined! Commercial Training or Coaching Services: Taxing education! MIXED BUZZ India, Australia decide to cooperate in mining sector; CBEC two-day meet to deliberate on GST and department's preparedness; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Standard Chartered Bank Vs ACIT, Bombay (Dated: August 25, 2009) Income tax - Securities scam - Assessee-bank wants to take control the money diverted to the accounts of stock broker Harshad Shantilal Mehta - Special Court decides against the distribution of the money until income tax case is decided - held, Special Court is justified in disallowing the bank to get control of the money until the CIT(A) decides the appeal - the concerned CIT(A) who is under order of transfer allowed to continue in the same charge for six months and dispose of the case within four months without allowing any adjournment on any ground whatsoever - Assessee's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT; 2009-TIOL-472-HC-KAR-IT .pdf + hc story.pdf CIT, Bangalore Vs Shri H S Ramachandra Rao (Dated: August 12, 2009) Income tax - Search - Statements u/s 132(4) recorded - assessee admits receipt of a huge sum as quid pro quo payment for relinquishing certain posts held by the assessee in a society that runs two schools - assessee treats the same as capital in nature, having linked to his goodwill - AO disagrees and treats it as revenue receipt - Tribunal reverses CIT(A) order and treats it as capital receipt - held, the amount received by the assessee cannot be treated as a capital receipt since to forego life membership or secretaryship, there is no capital asset which has been transferred by the assessee in favour of the person who has paid the sum. Further the assessee was not earning any income or making profit out of the said posts, and by virtue of relinquishing the same, the assessee did not lose monetarily and as such entire amount received by the assessee cannot be termed or construed as capital receipt. It cannot be treated as capital in nature, and has rightly been treated as income from other souces by the AO - Revenue's appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT; Mr John D'Souza Vs CIT, Panaji (Dated: August 13, 2009) Income tax - Sec 28 - Assessee receives a lump sum amount for not carrying out fish farming - treats the compensation as capital in nature - AO treats the same as taxable receipt - held, since fish farming was the assessee's regular business and the payment was for discontinuing the same - Sec 28 does apply to this case - Assessee's appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT; CIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Contimeters Electricals Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 20, 2009) Income tax - Assessee manufactures Meters and electric components - claims deduction for food and gifts given to representatives of buyers of its goods and service charge paid to liaison agencies - AO disallows - CIT(A) and Tribunal agree with the assessee - held, since the food and gifts are linked to the normal business promotion and paying service charges to liaison agencies to facilitate in procuring govt orders for supplies are business expenditure - Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-469-HC-CHATTISGARH-IT.pdf M/s Chandra Prasad Liquor Vs CIT (Dated: July 7, 2009) Income tax - Sec 271(1)(c) - Assessee asked to furnish books of accounts - fails to do so - AO levies penalty - CIT(A) and Tribunal confirm it albeit the Tribunal observes that the AO has failed to record satisfaction for the imposition of penalty - held, since the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have given concurrent findings that the assessee has failed to provide explanation of excessive expenditures in relation to the business, the provision of explanation 1 to Section 271 (1)(c) is applicable - Assessee's appeal dismissed: CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
SEZ - INSTRUCTION Instructions regarding proposals to be considered by BoA.; Consolidated list of default authorized operations which can be undertaken by the developer/approved co-developer by default from the date of notification; Implementation of the Provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 & SEZ Rules, 2006;
SERVICE TAX SECTION CCE & CC, Surat Vs Shri Sarvan Kumar B Sharma (Dated: July 27, 2009) ST - Assessee seeks registration under C & F Agent - writes to the Revenue to clarify the head of the taxable service - Delay in payment of tax - later Revenue realises that the assessee is covered under cargo handling service - SCN issued - Commissioner(A) finds no mens rea in SCN and treats it beyond the time of limitation - held, since the assessee had approached the Revenue for clarifying the taxable head and the Revenue did not advise the assessee to pay tax, Commissioner (A) order setting aside the demand is valid - Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Cosmos Detective & Security Services Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: July 22, 2009) ST - Security Services - Assessee's balance sheet scrutinised and Revenue raises demand - assessee pleads in addition to security services they also provide manpower supply service which was not taxable prior to 16.6.2005 - also informs the Tribunal that a separate SCN was issued for the latter period and the same was dropped by the adjudicating authority and the Revenue has not appealed against - held, since the present demand concerns prior period than the one decided by the adjudicating authority, the case is remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; CCE, Nagpur Vs Noble Grains India Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 12, 2009) Notfn no. 41/2007-ST grants refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods by the exporter hence prima facie respondent manufacturer cannot claim refund of service tax paid on port services received by another party for export of goods. Benefit under notification 41/2007-ST cannot be claimed by third parties – Rule of strict interpretation applies to exemption notification. Impugned order stayed till the final disposal of appeals.: MUMBAI CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1408-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s United Telecom Limited Vs CC,CCE & ST, Hyderabad (Dated: May 12, 2009) Service Tax – Contract on BOOT basis with e-seva for supporting and operating e-seva services for citizens to pay taxes and utility bills – Revenue initially initiated action under Online Information Database Access & Retrieval Service' which was dropped and for same period initiated recovery under Business Auxiliary Service – Services not classifiable under BAS, no justification for invoking extended period – Full waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted till disposal of appeal: BANGALORE CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION CCE, Delhi -IV Vs M/s Condor Power Product (P) Ltd (Dated: August 18, 2009) Central Excise – Condontation of delay in filing appeal – High Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of 180 days – Issue covered by Hongo India case.: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-1415-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + victor story.pdf CCE, Pune III Vs Victor CNG Engg (Dated: July 22, 2009) Interest has been waived by Commissioner(Appeals) regardless or by being oblivious to provisions of Explanation to sub-section (2B) of Section 11A – CESTAT terms it as illegal and sets aside order.: MUMBAI CESTAT; CCE & CC, Vapi Vs M/s Krat-Tech Products Inc (Dated: June 23, 2009) Central Excise – Clearance of 20gm collapsible tube along with 70gm pack of shaving cream with printed MRP on package – Matter remanded to Appellate Commissioner for a fresh order due to lack of clarity in decision – Appellant at liberty to put forth Tribunal's decision supporting their view that combination packs to be assessed under Section 4A and not individually assessed to duty: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Gopal Iron & Steel Co (Gujarat) Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: May 20, 2009) Central Excise - CENVAT Credit on furnace oil used by the job-worker operating under Notification 214/86 CE dated 25.3.86 - the appellants are eligible for credit - Commissioner (Appeals) order denying the credit is set aside: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION DGFT PUBLIC NOTICES More entries added in Appendix 37D; New insertion in para III of Appendix 14-I-H of FTP; DGFT adds Telecom Equipment & Services Export Promotion Council in Appendix 2; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-473-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + commission story.pdf M/s Optigrab International Vs Government Of India, Chennai (Dated: July 14, 2009) Customs – Rejection of applications by Settlement Commission – A common application for settlement of cases against three different show cause notices not maintainable unless duty liability in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs is shown in each of the three different cases in terms of Section 127B(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 – No merits in Writ Petition, liable for dismissal: MADRAS HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-1409-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Kailash Diagnostic & Rehabilitation Centre, Hyderabad & Another Vs CC, Hyderabad (Dated: April 28, 2009) Customs – Benefit of Notification 64/88-Cus not available to diagnostic centers importing medical equipments – Confiscation and redemption fine upheld, penalties reduced : BANGALORE CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
