|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Flawless GST from 1st October 2010 - The Discussion Paper released by Empowered Committee of Finance Ministers on 10th November, 2009 envisages an extremely diluted form of GST - Task Force on GST (See 'Common Basket') Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of phosphoric acid of all grades and all concentration; CBEC clarifies on whether labelling and repacking amount to manufacture or not; LTC to Central Government Employees - Travel by tour packages operated by IRCTC; Sixth Central Pay Commission's recommendations amendment of Service Rules - regarding; Non-residents can work on Indian projects only on employment visa; Business visa norms to be tightened; DTC to provide conducive environ for FDI: FM; BoA grants 6 Formal and 2 In-Principle Approvals; UN welcomes new tariff cuts in Asia; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL RUN UP TO GST IGST – Innovative way of handling Inter State Transactions; Report of NCAER on impact of GST on Foreign Trade.pdf Report of Task Force on Implementation of GST.pdf TIOL COMMENTARY Flawless GST from 1st October 2010 - The Discussion Paper released by Empowered Committee of Finance Ministers on 10th November, 2009 envisages an extremely diluted form of GST - Task Force on GST; Service tax: Transaction Between Associated Enterprise; CASE LAW +ANALYSIS 2009-TIOL-700-HC-DEL-FEMA.pdf + fema story.pdf Girish Gunjotikar Vs UoI (Dated: December 8, 2009) Whether the Foreign Exchange Mana gement (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 would be applicable and to what extent will apply to exports made in 1998 is doubtful – pre-deposit reduced: DELHI HIGH COURT; 6th Pay Commission Memorandum LTC to Central Government Employees - Travel by tour packages operated by IRCTC; Sixth Central Pay Commission's recommendations amendment of Service Rules - regarding; MIXED BUZZ Non-residents can work on Indian projects only on employment visa; Business visa norms to be tightened; DTC to provide conducive environ for FDI: FM; BoA grants 6 Formal and 2 In-Principle Approvals; UN welcomes new tariff cuts in Asia; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CBDT grants NFSD benefits to 33 JCITs; CASE LAWS CIT Vs M/s Sri Ram Chits (Bangalore) Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 17, 2009) Income tax - Sec 145(2) - Assessee-company is engaged in chit fund business - files loss return - AO notices that assessee receives foreman commission on concluded chits and also credits a sum to 'chit fund suspense account' as commission for the running chits - Assessee argues it follows contract completion method of accounting before the same sum is offered as dividend to all group members - AO disagrees and makes addition - CIT(A) agrees with the AO - Tribunal allows the appeal in part, following its own orders in earlier years - held, since the provisions of Sec 145(2) have not been examined by all the lower authorites, the issue is remanded - Appeal is disposed off. :KARNATAKA HIGH COURT; CIT, Chennai Vs M/s E I D Parry India Ltd (Dated: December 1, 2009) Income tax - Sec 115JA, 234B, 234C - Assessee is a manufacturer of fertiliser products and industrial alcohol - admits book profits u/s 115JB - computes interest under Ss 234B and 234C after adjusting MAT credit - AO disalows - held, issue is already settled in favour of the assessee as MAT credit is to be adjusted before computation of interest - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT; CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Ample Properties Ltd (Dated: November 30, 2009) Income tax - Sec 271(1)(c) - AO is a manufacturer of ether and anesthetic ether - files loss return - AO makes additions and initiates penalty proceedings - CIT(A) and Tribunal delete the same - held, when the assessment is made on estimate basis, penalty cannot be imposed - unless there is clear-cut suppression or furnishing of wrong particulars, penalty cannot be imposed - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT; ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Everready Investments Pvt Ltd (Dated: May 15, 2009) Income Tax - Assessee, an investment company, claims loss on sale of shares as business loss - AO disallows the loss holding it as an investment loss (capital loss) and levies penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) allows assessee's appeal - Held, assessee was under a bona fide belief that the loss incurred was in the course of its business of controlling interest and, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are not attracted - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT; ACIT, Chennai Vs M/s Chennai Petroleum Corpn Ltd (Dated: October 23, 2009) Income Tax – assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation on the Gas Sweetening Plant which was kept ready for use during the entire previous year, though not actually used due to lack of raw material: even after the introduction of block of assets concept, there is no change in the legal position to the effect that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation even though the assets in question were not actually put to use in the relevant previous year, but were kept ready for being put to use for the purpose of the business. The judgment of the Madras High Court on this question is in CIT vs. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. - (2003-TIOL-263-HC-MAD-IT) . An assessee can claim development rebate in the year in which the asset was installed or in the immediately succeeding previous year in which year the asset was "first put to use": CHENNAI ITAT (THIRD MEMBER); |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2009-TIOL-2066-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + kirloskar oil engines story.pdf Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: October 29, 2009) Denial of Cenvat Credit on Garden Maintenance Services – Statutory requirement laid down by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to maintain 33% greenery on factory premises is of no relevance in deciding admissibility - ROM application dismissed by CESTAT: MUMBAI CESTAT; CST, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Epitome Tech Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 5, 2009) ST - Consulting Engineer Service - Assessee provides software testing or auditing service - Revenue raises demand and imposes penalties - Commissioner(A) holds that the services are not covered under the Consulting Engineering Service, therefore, there is no question of levying penalties- held, no infirmity in the Comissioner(A) order - Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Cosmos Detective & Security Services Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: October 19, 2009) ST - Penalty - Assessee regularly pays tax but on a sum minus TDS - once pointed out, assessee pays the tax with interest - penalty imposed - Assessee pleads that it was under bona fide belief that no tax is to be paid on the TDS amount - held, since the entire tax with interest has been deposited, waiver from pre-deposit granted: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION CIRCULAR Clarification regarding labelling and repacking etc. amounting to manufacture; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-2063-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: March 20, 2009) Central Excise – Valuation of spares cleared by assessee to holding company for use in maintenance of water purifiers – Since there is no sale, cost construction method to be adopted by recourse to Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of Valuation Rules – Impugned order set aside: BANGALORE CESTAT; Paranjape Autocast Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-II (Dated: August 28, 2009) Cenvat Credit is available on Carbon cups and Temperature tips as these are consumables and hence inputs: MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Shivkripa Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Nasik (Dated: October 15, 2009) Death of Director of appellant - Imposition of penalty is intended to penalize the accused - Penal liability cannot be fastened on legal representative. Clandestine removal – no protest by the appellants that the stock taking was done on eye estimation without weighing and duty paid without any protest – appellant never questioned the correctness of panchanama nor requested for re-checking/re-verification till SCN was issued – duty demand upheld. Credit taken on Xerox copy of invoice certified by Range Superintendent – merely because original and duplicate copy of invoice is lost claim cannot be denied – M.P HC decision in Kataria Wires relied upon. Although the appellant have paid the duty demand they have failed to pay the interest on applicable rates within prescribed time limit, hence equivalent penalty u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 imposable: MUMBAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Customs Not 74/2009 rescinded Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of phosphoric acid of all grades and all concentration CASE LAWS Shri Mahendra Shah Vs CC (Import), Mumbai (Dated: July 10, 2009) Goods imported under forged licence are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act but since the same were not cleared under bond/undertaking, no redemption fine can be imposed in view of decisions in Raja Impex P. Ltd. [ 2008-TIOL-280-HC-P&H-Cus ] and Shiv Kripa Ispat P. Ltd. [ 2009-TIOL-388-CESTAT-Mum-LB ] Penalty on importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act follows as a consequence but reduced to Rs.1.5 lakhs. Evidence indicate that the broker and CHA entered into genuine transaction of dealing with a licence treating the same to be genuine and nothing is brought on record to show that they abetted the offence committed by the importer hence penalties on broker and CHA unsustainable hence set aside – Appeal disposed of : MUMBAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
