|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
TIOL RUN UP TO GST GST - Missed opportunities! TIOL COMMENTARY Central Excise and Income Tax Inspectors to get higher pay from 1.1.2006; Service tax on residential complexes - Revenue's unique strategy to handle refund claims; RBI NOTIFICATION RTGS System - Government Receipts; MIXED BUZZ Govt to set up State Ministers' panel to jack up share of manufacturing to 25% of GDP; Corruption in AICTE: CBI suggests systemic changes; DGCA issues guidelines for aircraft operations during fog conditions; Enforcement agencies nab notorious wildlife criminal Bheema; State Govts operating aircraft without permit; DGCA takes up issue; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
CBDT issues transfer order of 7 CCITs; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-626-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + s k jha story.pdf Shiva Kant Jha Vs UoI (Dated: November 11, 2009) International treaties - Public Interest Litigation - Union Government's treaty-making power - Petitioner alleges abuse of Executive's power in violation of Constitutional mandate by entering into Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements including Mutual Agreement Procedure and ratification and adoption of WTO Treaty - held, that the executive power of the Union extends to exercise of rights by virtue of any treaty or agreement subject to constitutional limitations; that in order to enact any law in pursuance to an international treaty, the same has to be placed before the Parliament and that even an exercise of executive function to enter into an international treaty under Article 73 of the Constitution of India cannot be de hors the Constitution.:DELHI HIGH COURT; Sant Ram Vs UoI (Dated: October 20, 2009) Income tax - Sec 4, 194A - Assessee gets interest on compensation paid for land acquisition - AO is for TDS u/s 194A - held, it is settled law that the interest paid on delayed land compensation is revenue receipt and therefore, it is liable to TDS - Assessee's appeal dismissed:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT; Mani Muthusamy Vs Personal Assistant To The Collector (Dated: October 15, 2009) Income tax - Sec 194C - Assessees are suppliers of eggs to State Govt schools for noon meals - enters into contract with District authorities - AO treats it as works contract and directs the assessees to deduct tax at source u/s 194C - Assessees go in writ and plead theirs is a contract for sale - held, since other remedies are available to the assessees, the case is remanded - Assessees' petitions dismissed:MADRAS HIGH COURT; M/s Mesco Exports Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: September 30, 2009) Income tax - Sec 201(1), 201(1A) - Assessee is a Group company - search - Revenue finds the assessee had deducted TDS on various transactions but never deposited the same in the Govt account - Orders u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) passed - Assessee pleads limitation as the case pertains to FY 1993-94 - held, since this is a mala fide act of the assessee, no time limit can be applied - even vide amendment by Finance Act 2009, the time limit for such cases has been extended upto 2011 - Assessee's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT; LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: September 30, 2009) Income tax - Sec 271(1)(c) - Assessee is in business of manufacturing, sales and marketing of electronic products - claims deduction for provision of expenses during the year - AO diallows and initiates penalty - CIT(A) confirms the same - held, as long as liability has been incurred and only the quantification of the same is to be done and an estimate is made in this regard, and when the provision made is more because of requantification of liability, the excess sum is written back to the P&L Account, there is no ground for levying penalty - Assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s Decorators Pvt Ltd Vs CST, New Delhi (Dated : July 13, 2009) ST - works contract - assessee is into construction industry - claims abatement for materials used in renovation work - Revenue disallows - held, since the assessee has failed to produce the actual work orders, it is difficult to decipher the actual nature of contract for services provided to eight recipients - Pre-deposit of Rs two crore ordered - Assessee's appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT; M/s Decorators Pvt Ltd Vs CST, New Delhi (Dated : July 13, 2009) ST - works contract - assessee is into construction industry - claims abatement for materials used in renovation work - Revenue disallows - held, since the assessee has failed to produce the actual work orders, it is difficult to decipher the actual nature of contract for services provided to eight recipients - Pre-deposit of Rs two crore ordered - Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT; CCE (Service Tax), Coimbatore Vs M/s Karl Kubel Institute For Development Education (Dated : August 7, 2009) Service Tax – commercial training or coaching – only the Committee of Commissioners could direct the Central Excise officer to file appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, but not the Commissioner of Central Excise – Also as the respondents are non-profit organization registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 – order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld.: CHENNAI CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION Kotak Chemicals LtdVs CCE & Customs, Surat-I (Dated: October 8, 2009) Central Excise - classification - Assessee is a chemical manufacture - dispute over classification of end-product 'Precipitated Calcium Carbonate' - Tribunal classifies the same under Heading 2836.90 and not under Heading 2505.90 as claimed by the assessee - appeal to Supreme Court - assessee argues that the process involved in the manufacture of assessee's final product 'Precipitated Chalk' is different from 'Precipitated Calcium Carbonate' - held, since the chemical composition of both the end products is the same, there is no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision - Assessee's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT; 2009-TIOL-1887-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + cosmo story.pdf M/s Cosmo Films Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated : October 23, 2009) Penalty under rule 15 of CER, 2002 is not imposable as there is no such provision – penalty under rule 25 can be imposed where goods are liable for confiscation – being a revenue neutral situation no intention to evade duty – Penalty set aside – CESTAT: MUMBAI CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1886-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + alumeco india story.pdf M/s Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated : May 26, 2009) Central Excise – Intermediate goods manufactured on job work basis under Notification 214/86-CE for further consumption in a unit availing area based exemption Notification 50/2003-CE should pass test of marketability for levy of excise duty – It is settled law that burden of proving marketability of goods rests with revenue – Revenue has not adduced any evidences to prove marketability of goods manufactured by job worker – Requisite declarations filed with jurisdictional authorities about the activity of job work and declared in statutory returns – Demand of duty and levy of penalty fails on merits as well as limitation – Impugned order liable to be set aside: BANGALORE CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1885-CESTAT-BANG.pdf ACC & CCE, Visakhapatnam Vs M/s Hygrade Pallet Ltd (Dated : May 15, 2009) Central Excise – Iron ore chips emerging in the process of sieving/grinding iron ore fines are waste – No requirement to pay 8% under Rule 6 – No reason to interfere with order of Appellate Commissioner: BANGALORE CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION DGFT PUBLIC NOTICE Amendment of SION G-7 in the import item S.No.20; CASE LAWS CC, Chennai Vs N T Rama Rao (Dated : August 12, 2009) Customs – CHA – order relating to renewal of CHA licence is administrative in nature and is not a quasi-judicial order – appeal does not lie before CESTAT – revenue appeal dismissed.: CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Sunstar Impex (Pvt) Ltd Vs CC, Kandla (Dated : August 25, 2009) Customs – Substantial evidence on record to suggest that recipient of goods cleared against forged CT-3 certificates is a dummy unit created by supplier unit – Evidence on record to suggest that re-warehousing certificates were forged – Duty demand and penalties confirmed – Impugned order upheld: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
