|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Cabinet decides to introduce Rs 800 Cr equity in National Aviation Company of India + designates MTNL as Telecom Service Provider for Commonwealth Games 2010; SSC announces results of written test for Tax Assistant for Customs & Excise and Income Tax exams, 2009 Govt formulates new scheme for e-governance in Panchayats; Lack of human capital proving major constraint to expand healthcare: Azad ; CCS gives nod to Defence Academy at Gaya; FM worried over food price rise; says India may achieve 8% growth in 2010-11; Khurshid extends support to Bharti Airtel over Zain asset-buy issue; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Today is 150th anniversary of India's First Budget; Amended Transfer Policy: CBDT does good work but more needs to be done; Will CBEC follow suit? Will FM handle these most contentious Service Tax issues? CASE LAWS + ANALYSIS 2010-TIOL-133-HC-MUM-FEMA.pdf + fera story.pdf Cambata Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Additional Director Of Enforcement (Dated : January 18, 2010) FERA alleged Offences took place in 1958, first notice issued in 1973, personal hearing in 2003 writ in 2003 - Department is not entitled to reopen old matters in this manner: No fault can be attributed to the petitioners for this delay and inaction on the part of the respondents. The respondents are not alleging any malice on the part of the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are responsible for delaying the proceedings. No justification is to be found in the explanation for causing delay in the adjudication process. The absence of relevant record due to lapse of more than 30-35 years is also a factual aspect which needs to be taken into account. The respondents cannot be allowed to reopen the proceedings. If allowed it would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the petitioners. The Department is not entitled to reopen old matters in this manner.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; MIXED BUZZ CCEA approves Rs 800 Cr equity infusion in NACIL; Govt formulates new scheme for e-governance in Panchayats; Lack of human capital proving major constraint to expand healthcare: Azad; CCS gives nod to Defence Academy at Gaya; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2010-TIOL-05-ARA-IT .pdf + ara story.pdf Shri Anurag Chaudhary ( Dated : February 15, 2010) Applicant was employed abroad and was in India for 123 days in the year He is NRI and his income abroad cannot be taxed in India: for an individual who has left India for employment outside India, he should be treated as resident of India only if he was in India during the relevant period/year for 182 days or more. In other words, if an individual has spent less than 182 days in India during a previous year and was outside India for the purposes of employment, then regardless of his being in India for 365 days or more during 4 preceding previous years, he cannot be treated as a resident of India. It necessarily follows that the applicant was a non-resident' during the relevant period. Consequently his income that accrued outside India in USA by reason of his employment there cannot form part of the total income taxable in India. The Department in its comments dated 28.1.10 has also clarified that the applicant may be treated as NRI as he remained in India for 123 days during the financial year 2008-09:ADVANCE RULING; 2010-TIOL-88-ITAT-DEL.pdf + umang story.pdf DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Umang Dairies Ltd (Dated: December 4, 2009) Income tax - Sec 193, 43B, 40(a)(ia), 36(1)(iii) - Assessee claims deduction for accured interest on debentures - AO finds assessee has not accounted for such interest in books and it is also not ascertained liability - also holds that such expenditure cannot be allowed as per provisions of Sec 40(a)(ia) as assessee has failed to deduct tax at source - CIT(A) takes the view that as per terms of debenture issued, interest was accruing year to year, therefore, the ascertainability of the amount of interest was never in doubt and, therefore, it was not contingent - expenditure is allowable as per provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) :DELHI ITAT; DCIT, New Delhi Vs Shri Yogendra Chandra Kurele (Dated: October 16, 2009) Income Tax Disallowability of expenditure in agricultural activities when agricultural income itself is exempt from taxation Allowability of exemption u/s 10A: DELHI ITAT - {Read More}; M/s Western India Marine Corp Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 10, 2009) Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowability of Speed Money' paid to labourers' Allowability of Bad Debts :MUMBAI ITAT -{Read More}; Kailashnath Malhotra Vs JCIT, Mumbai (Dated: October 12, 2009) Income tax - Sec 132, 254(2) - Assessee is searched u/s 132 - Revenue finds a note detailing certain expenditures with the balance amount - Assessee terms it as a Planner of expenditure to be made - AO makes addition - CIT(A) and Tribunal go with the AO - Assessee files Misc application u/s 254(2) - same is rejected - assessee files another Misc application - differencet of opinion among the Members of the Tribunal - held, application u/s 254(2) can be entertained only when the two conditions prescribed by the law - the presence of mistake, and the mistake being apparent on record - are fulfilled - once the first misc application was rejected, the Tribunal has no powers to enterain the second misc applicaiton on the same set of facts - assessee's appeal dismissed :MUMBAI ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
M/s Dynamic Garrage And Carrier Bhopal Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated: December 15, 2009) ST - Rent-a-Cab Operator - Assessee takes registration but stops paying tax on alleged ground of confusion - Penalty imposed - held, since the assessee paid that tax only because of the search operation and made a case under Sec 73 - the levy under Sec 73 is not under challenge and it calls for penalty under Sec 78 - but Sec 78 has undergone an amendment to grant concession of penalty - matter remanded:DELHI CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION 2010-TIOL-134-HC-AHM-CX.pdf + penalty story.pdf CCE & CC Vs Rama Synsilk Mills P Ltd (Dated : January 21, 2010) Central Excise penalty Duty paid before issue of Show Cause Notice 25% penalty is justified: In the present case, the issue is with regard to levy of penalty equivalent to 25% of the duty amount. Since the respondent assessee has already paid the duty amount prior to the issuance of show-cause notice, there is no question of exercise of any option by the respondent - assessee and the assessee is straightway entitled to the benefit of the Proviso 1 & 2 to Section 11AC of the Act.:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; Umesh Pencil Processors Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: October 27, 2009) Central Excise marketability mixture of graphite and clay captively used for manufacture of pencils which attract Nil rate of duty There is no evidence that the mixture of graphite and clay is marketable impugned orders set aside:CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Kamal Bells Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: May 5, 2009) Central Excise Interest not liable to be paid on supplementary invoices after revision of prices :BANGALORE CESTAT; CCE, Madurai Vs Efgy Rubbers (Dated: September 30, 2009) Central Excise excisability friction cloth and rubberized cotton fabric - the department has not discharged the burden of establishing that goods in question are marketable - The show-cause notice and adjudication order proceed on the basis that marketability is not required to be established for the reason that there is a specific tariff entry covering rubberized cotton fabrics in absence of any material to establish the marketability, revenue appeal against the impugned order holding that the goods are not excisable is not maintainable:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION M/s Essilor India Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: May 11, 2009) Customs Import of semi finished ophthalmic spectacle lenses and claim of exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-CE Exemption not available for semi finished ophthalmic lenses CESTAT decision in M/s Essilor India Pvt Ltd = 2008-TIOL-470-CESTAT-BANG followed :BANGALORE CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
