|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dear FM, don't you think you need a long-term Revenue Secretary for DTC and GST-roll-outs? (See 'Common Basket') Junk Furniture in Government offices – why not dispose them? (See 'Common Basket') A K Srivastava, Joint Secretary, appointed as Spokesperson for Ministry of Corporate Affairs; Siliguri DRI seizes 903 kg of ganja from four chambers of oil tanker; Import of sensitive items grows by 34.5%; Edible oil tops list ; UN to facilitate world tourism leaders to plan recovery after economic crisis Nobel Prize for Chemistry goes to another trio of Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas A Steiz and Ada E Yonath for studies in ribosomes that produce proteins in living cells |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sendign the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Does Commissioner include Additional Commissioner? Dear FM, don't you think you need a long-term Revenue Secretary for DTC and GST-roll-outs? MIXED BUZZ Forum of Federations elects Dr Kelkar as new Chairman; Import of sensitive items grows by 34.5%; Edible oil tops list; UN to facilitate world tourism leaders to plan recovery after economic crisis; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
2009-TIOL-534-HC-KAR-IT.pdf + tpa story.pdf Medi Assist India Tpa P Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: August 13, 2009) Income tax - Sec 194J - Third Party Administrator ( TPA ) providing health insurance clai m services, makes payments to hospitals – liable to deduct TDS: A perusal of the agreement itself discloses that the TPA is responsible for making the payment to the hospital for rendering the medical service to the policy holders. The TPAs enter into an agreement with the hospitals for the aforesaid purpose. It is not necessary as to when the services are required to be provided by the TPA . Services can also be said to have been provided if they are provided through someone else on the request of the TPA . Indeed the TPA is given unbridled power in this regard. This would be in the nature of TPA taking over a part of the work of the insurance company. The TPA who is the authority or the person to pay the amount to the hospital is required to deduct tax at source under section 194J - Assessee's appeal dismissed:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT; DCIT, Bangalore-1 Vs M/s Bank Muscat Saog (Dated: July 24, 2009) Income tax - Sec 5 - Assessee is a bank - claims deduction for interest accrued but not fallen due on securities - AO makes additions - CIT(A) disagrees with the AO - held, it is settled law that the broken period interest is not taxable as it has not become due and has not accrued - Revenue's appeal dismissed:BANGALORE ITAT; ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Blue Niles Holdings Ltd (Dated: August 26, 2009) Income Tax - Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 37(2) - Assessee engaged in share trading activity, debits a sum as provision for Non-Performing Assets and places reliance on RBI Guidelines in support of the said deduction - AO is of the view that the NPA claimed does not satisfy any of the conditions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 37(2)and makes additions - CIT(A) deletes the same - Held, once the special bench of the tribunal decides a controversy in a particular manner then that becomes binding on the other Division Benches of the tribunal. In the absence of any direct judgment of the Supreme Court or the jurisdictional High Court, it is not open to the Division Benches to deviate from the view expressed by the Special Bench. It is impermissible for the Division Benches of the tribunal to ignore the view expressed by the special bench by entertaining a contrary view. The order passed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of New India Industries Ltd. is binding on this Division Bench and according to that the provision for bad debt cannot be allowed as deduction - Revenue Appeal allowed.:MUMBAI ITAT;
DCIT, Mumbai Vs Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 21, 2009) Income Tax - Assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in chemicals - claims deduction for bad debts - AO disallows by observing that the assessee had not written off the said amount in its books of account - CIT (A) confirms the AO's action - Held, in view of the decisions of Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs Oman International International Bank and in Star Chemicals issue remanded to AO for afresh adjudication. M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: June 12, 2009) Income Tax - deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Assessee claims deduction - AO allows the claim on production of completion certificates - CIT invokes powers under section 263 on the ground that AO has not made enquiry in respect of certain things which are necessary for deduction u/s 80IB (10) and sets aside the assessment for making it afresh - Held, the revision of assessment orders as sought to be made by the CIT, while exercising jurisdiction under section 263, would in such a case be merely a difference of opinion and hence not amenable to the revision jurisdiction. The deduction can be allowed with respect to the units which did not exceed the statutory limit of 1000 sq. ft. Deduction u/s 80-IB(10) has been rightly allowed on housing projects because the building plans of the residential units were approved after 1.10.98 only, and the construction has to be deemed to have been commenced on or after the date of approval itself. Assessee Appeal partly allowed.: DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2009-TIOL-1589-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + discom story.pdf Discom Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: August 13, 2009) Service rendered by DISCOM under the ‘outright contribution scheme' through their electrical engineers to the consumers of electricity falls within the ambit of “taxable service” viz. Consulting Engineer Service under section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act, 1994 – CESTAT Tribunal's observations – “It is not in dispute that, in the outright contribution scheme, the electrical engineers of the appellants had rendered advice, consultancy and technical supervision for the consumers to install the necessary infrastructure for distribution of electricity. Admittedly, the infrastructure was brought in place at the cost of the consumers. It has, therefore, to be held that the service rendered by the appellant through their electrical engineers to the consumers of electricity fell within the ambit of “taxable service” under section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act, 1994. It goes without saying that the electrical engineers of the appellant were acting as “consulting engineers” within the scope of the definition given under section 65(31). The taxable service was rendered during the course of installation. Even otherwise, the ownership of the property has no bearing on the question whether the appellant was rendering a taxable service as “consulting engineers”, to the consumers of electricity.” Matter remanded with the following directions – Commissioner(Appeals) to himself quantify the service tax leviable from the appellant in respect of the supervision charges collected by them from the consumers of electricity during the period of dispute as also to reconsider and decide upon the question whether any penalty is imposable on the assessee and, if so, to what extent.:MUMBAI CESTAT; Mettur Thermal Power Station Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: July 7, 2009) Service Tax – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - Business Support Service – charges collected for disposal of fly ash by the appellant engaged in generation of electricity – prima facie taxable under business support service – pre deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs ordered.:CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Jayshree Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST, Bhubaneswar-I (Dated: June 12, 2009) Service tax – Credit availability of service tax paid on GTA service for outward transportation already settled by Larger Bench in ABB Ltd 2009-TIOL-830-CESTAT-BANG-LB and P& High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd 2009-TIOL-110-HC-P&H-ST – Impugned order set aside:KOLKATA CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1586-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s CMC Ltd Vs CST, Hyderabad (Dated: June 22, 2009) Service tax – Maintenance and operation of INFINET net work not liable to tax prior to 16.06.2005 – Prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit:BANGALORE CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION CCE, Pune-III Vs M/s Frito Lay India (Dated: August 12, 2009) Central Excise - ' Cheetos Masala Balls' ' Cheetos Cheese Puff' and ' Cheetos X & O' – falls under CSH 2108.00: It is well settled rule of interpretation that if a specific entry covers an impugned product then one need not go into the residuary heading. However, it is for the Department to show that 'Cheese Masala Balls', 'Cheese Puffs' etc. falls within 19.04. If the subject products do not fall in 19.04 then since the products in question are "edible preparations not elsewhere specified" they stand covered by a residuary entry 21.08.:SUPREME COURT; M/s Rainbow Rubber Industries Vs ACCE, Madurai (Dated: October 1, 2009) Central Excise – Offence – Conviction – Appellants are above 70 years of age; entire duty paid – Payment of Rs. Two lakhs ordered in lieu of six months imprisonment:SUPREME COURT; M/s Cadila Healthcare Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad-II (Dated: August 3, 2009) Central Excise – Clear finding by original authority that credit not taken on furnace oil used in manufacture of exempted goods – Demand of 10% under Rule 6(3)(b) not sustainable:AHMEDABAD CESTAT; CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd (Dated: July 6, 2009) Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – inputs written off – Credit cannot be denied as the inputs are still lying in factory though they have been written off.:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION 2009-TIOL-1590-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + sci story.pdf Shipping Corporation of India Ltd Vs CC,Mumbai (Dated: August 25, 2009) Suppression not shown to have been indulged with intent to evade payment of duty, however suppression ipso facto would render the vessel liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act – Penalty u/s 112 imposable – CESTAT orders M/s ONGC to make pre-deposit of Rupees Ten lakhs within four weeks and report compliance.:MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
