|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CBEC clarifies no service tax is leviable on Tour Operator Service in connection with Haj & Umrah Pilgrimage; CCEA decides listed CPSEs to offload 10% equity for public owership; CCEA gives nod for splitting of PSC for oil Block AA-ON/7 in Nagaland; Union Cabinet allows automatic route for payments for royalty and fee for transfer of technology; Personal income tax collections continue to be sluggish; Direct Tax Code: FM tells House Panel nine critical areas identified; Income Tax refund sharply leapfrogs from Rs 20212 Cr to Rs 33137 Cr by Oct-end; Overall direct taxes mop-up goes up by 3.92% in October; Hyderabad to host National Convention of Company Secretaries from tomorrow; Major bottlenecks in highways construction to be removed within a month : Kamal Nath; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Compulsive Litigation - Should Revenue Work Overtime to Feed Consultants? Is Revenue a 'compulsive' litigant? Law Minister needs to devise disincentive scheme to uphold Rule of Law! MIXED BUZZ CCEA decides listed CPSEs to offload 10% equity for public owership; CCEA gives nod for splitting of PSC for oil Block AA-ON/7 in Nagaland; Union Cabinet allows automatic route for payments for royalty and fee for transfer of technology; Personal income tax collections continue to be sluggish; Direct Tax Code: FM tells House Panel nine critical areas identified; Hyderabad to host National Convention of Company Secretaries from tomorrow; Major bottlenecks in highways construction to be removed within a month : Kamal Nath; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Coca Cola India Inc Vs DCIT, Gurgaon (Dated: October 9, 2009) Income tax - The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling aerated waters - exclusively responsible for marketing strategies, advertisement, publicity and sales promotion even for its bottlers and distributors - collects service charges and reimbursement of actual costs incurred from service recipients - offers the service charges to tax as income - AO takes the view that 5% of the total expenditures incurred by service recipient should be the mark-up for the assessee which does all the planning and undertakes all promotional activities and also operates their accounts - CIT(A) agrees - held, a similar issue was discussed by the Tribunal for earlier AYs in the case of assessee itself. Complying with judicial discipline, the case is remanded to the AO for fresh examination:DELHI ITAT; 2009-TIOL-689-ITAT-DEL.pdf + trade mark story.pdf Trent Brand Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: May 8, 2009) Capital gain is leviable on the transfer of trademarks and designs The assessee having assigned the trademarks and designs to Hindustan Lever Ltd., for a consideration of Rs. 110.05 crores , the same is a transfer of a capital asset and in view of the provisions of section 2( 42A ) Explanation ( b ), the capital asset which, became the property of the assessee under the transfer which has been referred to in clause ( iv ) to section 47 and such other clauses, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the asset acquired it and increase by the cost of any improvement to the asset incurred and borne by the previous owner or the assessee as the case may be Stamp duty of Rs. 1.10 crores , not incurred' by the assessee and therefore not an allowable deduction . In regard to the issue of disallowances of stamp duty of Rs. 1.10 crores it is noticed that the provisions of section 48(1) clearly says that the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer, can be deducted. Here, the word is incurred'. The assessee has not incurred the said expenditure and even as on date, the said expenditure has not been incurred. Consequently, the same is not an allowable deduction.:DELHI ITAT; Transocean Offshore International Venturest Ltd Vs DDIT, Dehradun (Dated: August 13, 2009) Income tax - Sec 10(10CC) - Employer pays tax on behalf of employees - whether tax borne by the employer companies on the perquisites would be subject to multiple grossing up or whether the same would be exempt under section 10(10CC) of the Act. The employer acts as an agent of 79 employees who claim exemption for tax paid by the employer - AO holds the tax paid by the employer is to be included in the income of the assessees on multiple stage grossing up - Assessee claims it is not a perquisite provided by way of monetary payment - CIT(A) decides to ignore the Special Bench decision in the case of RBF RIG Corporation, decided in favour of the assessee and observes that the intention of legislature in introducing section 10(10CC) was in respect of those perquisites which required valuation and not in respect of a tax perquisite which itself is describable in terms of rupees only. Section 10(10CC) have been introduced for the perquisites which need to be valued according to the basis of valuation prescribed in rule (3) and not a tax perquisite which does not need valuation. The counsel for the assessees submits that the action of the CIT(A) in disregarding the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal amounts to cross violation of the principles of judicial hierarchy that exists in tax proceedings. Such action of the CIT(A) has caused undue hardship to the assessee of depositing the appeal fees and again agitating the matter before the Tribunal which may be compensated by way of awarding cost in favour of the assessee and the cost may be awarded by way refund of fees of the assessee. Held, it is true that in this case, had the CIT(A) followed the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, the unnecessary and unwarranted appeal by the assessee could have been avoided and in that case, department could have filed appeal before the Tribunal provided the department was not inclined to accept the decision of the CIT(A) which is based on the decision of higher judicial authority. However, there is no material to say that the CIT(A) has disregarded the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal with a view to harass the assessees and to cause any monetary or other loss to the assessee in filing further appeal before the Tribunal. Assessees' appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT; M/s Royal Palms (India) Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: August 13, 2009) Income Tax - Sec 158BD - Assessee is engaged in the business of Real Estate Developments, Hotels, Golf Course, Developing and marketing of commercial & residential properties - on the basis of information received from the DCIT, notice u/s 158BD served on the assessee - The total undisclosed income determined Assessee contends before the CIT(A) that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 158BD is not legal as the same is initiated without recording requisite satisfaction as required under law - CIT(A) dismisses the assessee Appeal - Held, since the satisfaction has not been recorded in accordance with law, the proceedings are bad in law and, accordingly, the assessment is annulled. Assessee's appeal allowed.:MUMBAI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
SERVICE TAX SECTION CIRCULAR CBEC clarifies no service tax is leviable on Tour Operator Service in connection with Haj & Umrah Pilgrimage; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-1790-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + suzlon story.pdf Suzlon Infrastructure Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-III (Dated: October 7, 2009) Tribunal is possessed of the power to do procedural justice - Even after passing dissenting orders, a Division Bench of the Tribunal can entertain an application for rectification of mistake in exercise of inherent powers for the ends of justice New Division Bench to re-hear the case and dispose of appeal : CESTAT: MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Polyspin Ltd Vs CCE, Tirunelveli (Dated: August 21, 2009) Service Tax refund of Credit of input service refund claims ought not to be rejected for the reason that during the period in dispute, there was no liability cast upon the appellants to pay service tax under Section 66A.: CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Swaraj Automotives Ltd Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: August 27, 2009) ST - Cenvat credit - Assessee avails credit of tax paid on outward transportation - Revenue disallows - held, in view of the High Court decision in Ambuja Cement case and Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd case, assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION CIRCULAR Issuance of Licenses to manufacture cigarettes by Central Excise Department reg CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-1795-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + Hindustan Lever story.pdf M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs CCE, Lucknow (Dated: September 22, 2009) Mere Policy document would not entitle the assessee to claim exemption from payment of duty or tax - Exemption by means of a notification issued under Rule 8(1) of CER, 1944 exempting goods from duty (leviable under the Central Excise Act) will not constitute an authority for exemption from the Cess leviable under the Cess Act Limitation - it is well settled that once the Department issues the show cause notice for a particular period, the Department normally thereafter on the same set of facts and grounds cannot issue second show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation relating to earlier period thereto. Penalty -dispute related to the interpretation of statutory provisions and it did not disclose intention to evade the payment of duty and, therefore, there was no justification for imposition of penalty in the matter: DELHI CESTAT; M/s Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Panchkula (Dated: July 21, 2009) Central Excise Condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals) there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period permissible under Section 35 (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.: DELHI CESTAT; CCE, Chennai Vs Composite Boards (P) Ltd (Dated: August 4, 2009) Central Excise difference in value of clearances shown in Balance Sheet and ERI the contention that the difference was due to trading activity is not tenable as the Balance Sheet does not show any value of trading activity separately charge of clandestine clearances upheld.: CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Bajaj Fashions Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Surat (Dated: August 4, 2009) Central Excise Since question of validity of Rule 96ZQ(5) is pending before High Court matter remanded to original authority to decide on quantum of penalty after declaration of law by High Court Assessee at liberty to raise any other issue before original authority : AHMEDABAD CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1791-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Ampro Foods Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: April 29, 2009) Central Excise Orders passed by lower authorities traversed beyond directions issued in Tribunal's remand order which already made a categorical conclusion that quantity discounts were provided to dealers Quantity discounts eligible as deduction from assessable value Evidences for quantity discount available with revenue right through the proceedings from 1984 Lower authorities erred in not following directions of remand order of Tribunal Impugned orders liable to be set aside: BANGALORE CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION INSTRUCTION Applicability of indirect taxes on packaged software; NOTIFICATION CBEC amends Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules; prescribes monthly return ; CIRCULAR Grant of VKGUY and FPS/FMS benefits against self attested EP copy of Shipping Bills (in cases where original EP copy of Shipping Bill has been negotiated by the Bank). ; Operationalisation of provisions of Para 5.11.2 of Hand Book of Procedure Vol.-1 (2009-14) ; CASE LAWS Shri Sandeep Sehgal Vs CC, New Delhi (Dated: June 4, 2009) Customs Import of computer parts through speed post parcels and cleared clandestinely without payment of duty in collusion with postal assistants and inspector of customs Elaborate evidences to confirm modus operandi of clandestine removal of contraband goods Confiscation of goods and penalties on abettors confirmed Penalty on NRI set aside: DELHI CESTAT; Maharashtra Medical Foundation Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: August 31, 2009) Adjudicating Authority exceeding the limit set out in Tribunal's remand order and rejecting the claim by holding that it would defeat the objective of another notification - Appeal allowed by remand with direction to the Adjudicating Authority to consider on merit the claim for concessional rate of duty under notification no.65/88-Cus but without relying on the notification no.64/88-Cus. Rejection of claim for concessional rate of duty under notification no.65/88-Cus in denovo proceedings resulting from the earlier proceedings before Tribunal wherein the claim of the appellant under notification no.64/88-Cus was rejected with remand of the case directing the adjudicating authority to consider the assesse's claim under notification no.65/88-Cus and to grant the same if found admissible.:MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
