|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) comes into force - Trusted agency for cyber user in India; India, USA agree to deepen economic relations further; RBI makes no change in CRR, Repo Rate in Credit Policy; Govt notifies appointment of Indian Computer Emergency Response Team; Vacancies in the grade of Director and Under Secretary in the National Legal Services Authority on deputation basis-reg; Freight Corridor Project: Japan commits Rs 130 Cr for Engineering Services Loan; Spectrum allocation is a scam, says BJP; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Finally Ministry Exempts Works Contracts for Construction of Canals from Levy of Service Tax – Meant to cover construction under EPC mode? Time to do away with a couple of provisos and make the earth Greener; RBI NOTIFICATION RBI Notifi for Rupee Export Credit.pdf RBI makes no change in CRR, Repo Rate in Credit Policy; DEPUTATION POST Vacancies in grade of Director.pdf Vacancies in the grade of Director and Under Secretary in the National Legal Services Authority on deputation basis-reg; MIXED BUZZ Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) comes into force - Trusted agency for cyber user in India; Govt notifies appointment of Indian Computer Emergency Response Team; Freight Corridor Project: Japan commits Rs 130 Cr for Engineering Services Loan; India, USA agree to deepen economic relations further; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
CIT, Shimla Vs Shri Kangra Steel Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 8, 2009) Income tax - Rule 46A - Assessee files loss return - AO disallows some of the claims and makes additions - also asks assessee to furnish documents - Assessee does not appear for hearing on a fixed date - CIT(A) admits additional evidence where the assessee makes claims relating to payment of electricity bills and fails to give an opportunity to the AO to rebut it - Tribunal holds Rule 46A(4) does not make it mandatory for the CIT(A) to give an opportunity to the AO - held, Rule 46A is a mandatory provision and non- compliance of the same would vitiate the order itself - the CIT(A) was right in admitting additional evidence but once he allows the assessee to lead the evidence in terms of sub-rule (3), he is bound to to give an opportunity to the AO to examine the documents and also to produce any evidence to rebut if he so desires - this is also in accordance with the rule of natural justice - Revenue's appeal allowed:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT; CIT Vs M/s Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 2, 2009) Income tax - Sec 32 - Assessee is into poultry business - claims deduction for poultry sheds by treating the same as 'plant' - AO disallows - held, the line of demarcation between what is a ‘plant' or not is a very thin one. The definition of ‘plant' in Section 43(3) is not an exhaustive definition. It is only inclusive in nature. Therefore, there is a wide scope for including in the definition many items. That is why the legislature has stepped in and specifically excluded buildings from the definition of the word ‘plant'. This itself indicates that prior to the exclusion with effect from 1.4.2004, buildings if specifically constructed and falling within the guidelines of the various authorities could be treated as ‘plant'. The various authorities also indicate that a very wide amplitude has been given to term ‘plant'. The depreciation on poultry sheds is thus allowable - Revenue's appeal dismissed:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-660-ITAT-AHM-TM.pdf + TM story.pdf Jitu Builders Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Surat (Dated: August 7, 2009) Income tax - Penalty u/s 271D - Assessee is a real estate developer - negotiates a land deal - borrows cash fund to close the deal on beneficial terms - deal falls through - cash deposited in bank and an account payee cheque issued to the entity wich lent the cash to the assessee - AO treats it as violation of Sec 269SS and does not find any merits in the assessee's explanation to be treated as reasonable cause u/s 273B - initiates penalty proceedings u/s 271D - CIT(A) agrees with the AO - Difference of opinion among Tribunal Members - reference to Third Member who agrees with the Judicial Member, finding enough merit in the assessee's explanation and treating the same as reasonable cause u/s 273B - Third Member holds that,:AHMEDABAD ITAT (THIRD MEMBER); M/s Siel Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: September 30, 2009) Income Tax Act – Section 37(1) and Section 36(1)(iii) – Investments & Loans advanced to Subsidiaries – Held that no disallowance should be made when money had been advanced in earlier year and no addition was made in the earlier years on such advances on account of interest free advances in earlier years.:DELHI ITAT; ITO, Bangalore Vs M/s Gignext Solutions India Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 24, 2009) Income Tax - Section 10A - Assessee is engaged in software development and services - claims deduction u/s 10A - AO denies on the ground that the assessee has violated the conditions laid down in section 10A(2)(i)(b), 10A(2)(ii) and 10A(2)(iii) - CIT(A) allows appeal - Held, in view of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. and the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Foresee Information Systems (P) Ltd, deductions are available to the assessee - Revenue's Appeal dismissed.:BANGALORE ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2009-TIOL-1726-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + bus story.pdf Choudhary Yatra Co Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated: September 4, 2009) Appellant ‘renting' their buses to ITDC and Garhwal Vikas Nigam Ltd and registering themselves as ‘Rent-a-Cab' operator w.e.f 01.06.2007 – No cause to classify them as ‘Tour Operator' for prior period and demand Service Tax – Prima facie case - CESTAT grants stay.:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: August 4, 2009) ST - ROM - Assessee pleads no specific finding given by the Tribunal on availability of credit on bank charges paid - held, since the Commissioner(A) had not discussed the issue in his order and the same was missing in the Appeal Memo, but the charges are there in the SCN, the errors are corrected and the issue remanded for fresh examination - Assessee's appeal allowed:AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Shiv Motors Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: July 8, 2009) ST - BAS - Assessee is engaged in the business of sale of old and used vehicles and also acts as DSA for banks - receives commission from banks - Revenue raises demand and imposes penalty - Assessee pleads the gross sum of commission received also includes the income earned from sale of old vehicles which is not liable to service tax - seeks benefit of Sec 80 - held, issue remanded to the Revenue for fresh examination and also to see whether the assessee's case qualifies for Sec 80 benefits:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION 2009-TIOL-1723-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + globe story.pdf Globe Trotters Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: September 14, 2009) When the assessee informed the department the manner in which they intended to value P & P medicaments after introduction of MRP based assessment, Revenue ought to have taken action immediately – Strong prima facie case on limitation – Pre-deposit dispensed with and Stay allowed unconditionally.:MUMBAI CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1722-CESTAT-BANG.pdf CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Ultrapack (Dated: May 13, 2009) Central Excise – Undervaluation of goods on job work basis – Margin of 15% added by principal manufacturer to cost of production while supplying goods to job worker to be included by job worker to discharge duty in view of LB decision in Eicher Motors Ltd 2008-TIOL-977-CESTAT-DEL – Matter remanded for re-computation of assessable value and duty liability :BANGALORE CESTAT; CCE, Chennai Vs M/s MRF Limited (Dated: July 2, 2009) Central Excise – Cenvat Credit on differential duty paid on account of difference in rate of duty – credit is admissible on supplementary invoices even prior to the amendment of rule in March 2001 to expand the scope – substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural irregularities.:CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Super Spinning Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: July 3, 2009) Central Excise – Refund – the appellants are entitled for refund of accumulated credit on account of export of goods under bond.:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION M/s ETA General Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: August 3, 2009) Customs – Valuation – amount paid for technical documentation and drawings – the payment by assessee cannot be said to be in relation to the imported goods, but only in relation to the final products manufactured in India – not includible in the value – Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs valuation Rules.:CHENNAI CESTAT; Shri Mukesh Rathore Vs CC, Tughlakabad (Dated: July 16, 2009) Customs - Export - Fraudulent claim of drawback - Penalty - Revenue has established the involvement of all the three appellants in the export of over-valued used-garments to claim fraudulent drawback. The exported goods were not cleared at Dubai and were lying unclaimed. No evidence has been lead by any of the appellants to prove that they were not intimately and willfully connected with each other to perpetuate fraudulent activity of dubious export of readymade garments making over-valuation. Evil design of all the three appellants made the Revenue to suffer. Penalty imposed sustained. (Para 8):DELHI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
