|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Indian slush money in tax havens: FM pins hope on Global Forum to combat tax evasion (See 'Breaking News') 12 killed, 32 injured in major terrorist-triggered bomb blast in Pune, Chidambaram visits blast site; No specific intelligence, says Bhujbal + Pune bomb blast: Maharashtra Govt issues Alert in entire State; PM announces Rs 1 lakh relief to each victim; RBI to step in to curb asset price bubble burst: Subbarao; Bill on Cooperative Societies: House Panel invites views from stakeholders; CBI Director lays down performance roadmap for agency; Obama again calls outsourcing companies tax evaders; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Indian slush money in tax havens: FM pins hope on Global Forum to combat tax evasion ; MIXED BUZZ Govt notifies terms of reference of Justice B N Srikrishan Committee ; Bill on Cooperative Societies: House Panel invites views from stakeholders ; Govt sets up Task Force on Project Elephant ; CBI Director lays down performance roadmap for agency ; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CASE LAWS 2010-TIOL-124-HC-DEL-IT + cooler story.pdf CIT, Delhi Vs Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited (Dated : December 23, 2009) Income Tax – benefit under Section 80IA / 80IB – initial year is the year in which commercial production starts, not trial production; The initial assessment year, for the purpose of Section 80IA , is the assessment year relevant to previous year in which the “industrial undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things. that merely because some closing stock was shown as on 31st March, 1998, would not lead to the conclusion that there was commercial production as well. Naturally, even for the purpose of trial production material would be needed and there would be production which will result in stock of finished goods. Otherwise, there is overwhelming evidence produced by the assessee, and accepted by the Tribunal as well, from which it is clear that there was only a trial production Even if there was sale of only one water cooler and one air-conditioner, it amounts to commercial production : In the present case, the assessee had sold one water cooler and one air-conditioner before April, 1998. Thus, the stage of trial production had been crossed over and the assessee had come out with the final saleable product which was in fact sold as well. The quantum of commercial sale would be immaterial. With sale of those articles marketable quality was established, more particularly when assessee failed to show that the dealer returned those goods on the ground that there was any defect in the water cooler or air-conditioner produced and sold by the assessee to the dealer. Whether the purpose of that sale was to obtain registration of excise or sales tax would be immaterial. : DELHI HIGH COURT ;
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Edelweiss Securities Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 13, 2010) Income Tax - Section 43(5)(d) - Assessee deals in shares and securities and derivative instruments - AO disallows the loss in trading of derivative instrument and also disallows proportionate expenditure attributable to speculative business - also disallows the penalty levied by the Stock Exchange on the Assessee for violation of margins - CIT(A) partly allows the appeal - Held, on the issue whether loss on derivatives transaction is a speculation loss or not and whether the provisions of section 45(5)(d) are clarificatary and hence retrospective in nature, the issue is squarely covered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue by a decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd wherein it is held that section 43(5)(d) is prospective in nature and loss incurred on account of futures and options in shares is speculative in nature and cannot be treated as a business loss. On the issue of disallowance of penalty levied by the Stock Exchange for margin violation - Held, this penalty is not levied for violation of any law. The Tribunal in the case of Classic Shares and Stock Broking Services Ltd. vs. DCIT has held that the penalty levied by the Stock Exchange for short comings in margin money cannot be held to be that which is levied for infringement of law and hence cannot be deleted. Following the same, Revenue Ground allowed. Revenue Appeal is allowed in part. : MUMBAI ITAT ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: December 11, 2009) ST - Cenvat Credit - Assessee is a manufacturer - avails credit for duty paid on inputs used in generation of electricity in the factory but the same is not used in relation to manufacture and sold outside factory - held, issue is no longer res integra in view of Apex Court's decision in the case Solaris Chemtech ( 2007-TIOL-135-SC-CX ) - Assessee's appeal dismissed : DELHI CESTAT ;
CST, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd (Dated: January 5, 2010) ST - Service recipient from abroad - No tax prior to 18.04.2006 - since assessee's case pertains to period prior to 18.04.06, it is not taxable. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION 2010-TIOL-257-CESTAT-MUM + indorama story.pdf Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated: December 11, 2009) Demand raised in a haphazard manner; department themselves are not clear in their mind about demand of duty - Waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted: CESTAT : MUMBAI CESTAT ; M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: May 11, 2009) Central Excise – Zinc ingots used in manufacture of ‘sacrificial anodes' which in turn is used on board ships to protect hull from corrosion – Benefit of exemption notification 64/95-CE not deniable – Impugned order incorrect, liable to be set aside : BANGALORE CESTAT ; CCE, Bangalore Vs M/s Featherlite Seating Systems Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 3, 2009) Central Excise – Brand name – Usage of ‘featherlite' brand name for furniture – Revenue did not discharge the burden that ‘featherlite' does not belong to assessee but belongs to another person – Benefit of SSI exemption not deniable – No merit in revenue appeal – Impugned order upheld : BANGALORE CESTAT ;
CUSTOMS SECTION 2010-TIOL-254-CESTAT-MUM + metal story.pdf CC (Import), Mumbai-I Vs M/s N D Metals Industries Ltd (Dated: January 15, 2010) Matter remanded with direction that remnant sample be tested and matter adjudicated afresh – Revenue seeking a modification of the order on the ground that sample not available – Allowing such a modification would amount to review of order which power Tribunal cannot exercise – Application rejected – CESTAT. : MUMBAI CESTAT ; K Rahuman Sait Vs CC, Trichy (Dated: September 22, 2009) Customs – concealment of sandalwood in Mangalore Roofing Tiles – the retraction of statement is belated and has been rightly rejected – the appellant is liable to penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 – penalty reduced. : CHENNAI CESTAT ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
