|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
E-Filing of returns and E-payments:CBEC directs officers to assist trade and industry; Government increases import duty concessions for SAFTA countries; India will grow by 9% next fiscal: PM; CBI arrests ITO for accepting bribe; Government approves India's Statistical Strengthening Project as a centrally sponsored scheme; Gas availability changing face of industrial India: Murli Deora; PIB signs Rs 60 Cr contract with NBCC for new National Press Centre; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Why is Financial Literacy Important? RBI Governor explains; Service Tax proposals in Finance Bill, 2010 impact on Real Estate, retail and hospitality sectors: an analysis; MIXED BUZZ CBI arrests ITO for accepting bribe; Government approves India's Statistical Strengthening Project as a centrally sponsored scheme; Gas availability changing face of industrial India: Murli Deora; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs CIT, Dehradun (Dated: March 15, 2010) Income tax - Sec 37(1), 43A - Assessee is a public sector undertaking - engated in exploration and prospecting oil - depends on foreign loans to cover its capital and revenue expenses - fluctuation in foreign currency rates - assessee claims deduction u/s 37(1) in the year of fluctuation - also adjusts the actual cost of imported capital assets acquired in foreign currency on account of fluctuation at each balance-sheet date, pending actual payment of the varied liability - AO disallows - CIT(A) goes with the AO on the assessee's claim for foreign exchange loss in revenue account but accepts the assessee's stand relating to capital account - Tribunal disagrees with the AO but High Court reverses the Tribunal's order - held, in view of the Apex Court decision in the Woodward Governor case 2009-TIOL-50-SC-IT and the fact that this case pertains to the period prior to the amendment in Sec 43A, both the issues are settled in favour of the assessee - Assessee's appeal allowed:SUPREME COURT; 2010-TIOL-144-ITAT-MUM.pdf + itat story.pdf National Refinery Private Limited Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: March 5, 2010) It is simple and plain that the edifice of the assessment cannot be created on the foundation of a time barred notice - no notice u/s.143(2) , as claimed by the Revenue authorities, was issued assessment quashed: Return filed on 15.5.2000; notice said to be issued on 16.5.2000. Block return was filed on 15.5.2000. The filing of return on a Receipt counter on one day and the issuance of notice u/s.143(2) on the very next day would mean that all the steps from the receipt of return on the Receipt counter till the issuance of notice got completed within one day's time. Such steps would include the receipt of return on the Receipt counter of the department; the Receipt clerk, after entering the necessary particulars in the relevant register, handing over the same to the office of the concerned Assessing Officer; the office of the AO receiving it from the receipt clerk; placing of such return before the AO; the AO pursuing the return and all the accompanying documents; jotting down the points on which the explanation of the assessee is required ; finalizing such points and accordingly sending the notice. When it is claimed that a particular notice or order or other document was not contained in the letter, claimed to have been sent through registered post, it is for the sender to lead evidence to demonstrate that such notice, order or other documents etc. was in the letter so sent. It can be proved with the help of some internal record or dispatch register etc. maintained by the sender. Even the presumption that the notice, as contended by the Revenue, was actually issued on 16.5.2000 is accepted, then it would have contained some requirements of the Assessing Officer supposed to be furnished in support of certain claims made by the assessee. Along with the said notice u/s.143(2) dated 16.5.2000, copy of which is available in the Departmental Paper Book, there is no reference for the production of any accounts / document or any particular information. Except for mentioning the date on which the attendance is required on 6.6.2000, it is silent on the documents or evidence required from the assessee in support of the claims made in the block return :MUMBAI ITAT; ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Vaishno International (Dated: December 11, 2009) Income Tax - Section 158BD - In a search and seizure action u/s. 132 certain documents seized which reveals that the cash drawn from the various concerns of Raheja Group and various expenses relating to the projects developed by these concerns has been incurred, but such expenses are not accounted for in the books of the respective concerns. Block assessment proceedings initiated by issuing notice u/s. 158BD Assessee objects to the issuance of notice u/s. 158BD - CIT(A) rejects Assessee objection - Held, the Assessees' technical plea that the AO who had passed the order in the case of the Assessee had no jurisdiction as contemplated under the law dismissed.. The Assessees' technical plea that the order passed u/s. 158BD r.w.s. 158BC had not complied with the mandatory requirement to assume jurisdiction u/s. 158BD dismissed. The appeals by the Assessees on this ground dismissed:BANGALORE ITAT; ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Vaishno International (Dated: January 22, 2010) Income tax - Sec 80I, 80IB - Assessee files nil return - AO finds assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80I in place of 80IB - questionnaire served - assessee files revised return dening the benefits on the ground that revised return cannot be filed after expiry of deadline - assessee pleads the necessary conditions for claiming benefits under both the Sections are the same and it was a typo error whereby Sec 80IB was typed as Sec 80I - CIT(A) allows the appeal - held, wrong mention of Section cannot be used to deny legitimate deduction - CIT(A) order upheld - Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT; Panchsheel Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Meerut (Dated: January 29, 2010) Income Tax - Assessee receives commission as per TDS Certificate and claims the same but the income is not credited to the Profit & Loss account as per the AO. - AO makes addition - CIT (A) confirms the action of the A.O - Held, the explanation submitted by the Assessee has not been considered by any of the authorities below. In the interest of justice, the matter remanded to the AO who will examine the explanation given by the Assessee and decide the issue accordingly. Assessee's Appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s Baba Construction Vs CCE & ST, Ranchi (Dated: February 1, 2010) Appellant undertaking the Work Order for Optical Fibre Cable Laying as per Contract Demand on Service Tax on the ground that appellant is providing service in relation to site formation reading of the definition of Site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition' Prima facie indicates that the appellants' activity does not get covered Strong case in favour pre-deposit waived and stay granted:KOLKATA CESTAT; M/s Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: January 7, 2010) Appellant receiving inputs which is inclusive of freight element and transportation Department demanding service tax on freight from appellant Lorry Receipt does not show freight amount invoice issued for supply of input shows it is inclusive of freight reading both documents a conclusion can be drawn that freight is paid by supplier only and in such a situation liability to pay service tax is on supplier Strong prima facie case Pre-deposit waived and stay granted unconditionally:AHEMDABAD CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION CIRCULAR E-Filing of returns and E-payments:CBEC directs officers to assist trade and industry; CASE LAWS 2010-TIOL-182-HC-KOL-CX.pdf + alom story.pdf Alom Extrusions Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Central Excise (Dated : December 10, 2009) Central Excise Refund claim of 75% of penalty on the ground that duty along with interest was paid before issue of SCN Held, since the petitioner did not challenge the adjudication order, it attains finality in view of Apex Court decision in Flock (India) Ltd 2002-TIOL-208-SC-CX and binds the petitioner High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 does not sit in appeal over adjudication orders and/or appellate orders:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT; M/s Adwaith Steels Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: November 17, 2009) Central Excise CENVAT Inputs Job-worker MODVAT credit is available to the job-worker in respect of inputs used in processing of goods on job work basis and cleared without payment of duty to the main manufacturer who has in turn cleared the finished goods on payment of duty. Issue no longer res integra:CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s A Habeebur Rahman Sons Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: October 7, 2009) Central Excise CENVAT Duty paying document Delay although the Cenvat credit rules prescribe that credit should be taken immediately, no outside limit is prescribed and therefore credit cannot be denied even if the credit is taken after a long period. Regarding credit being taken on invoices which did not contain details of payment of duty, the matter remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision as there is no finding on the said issue:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Government increases import duty concessions for SAFTA countries.; CASE LAWS 2010-TIOL-181-HC-DEL-CUS.pdf + laxman story.pdf M/s Laxman Overseas Vs UoI (Dated : January 25, 2010) Freezing of EEFC Accounts for more than four years in connection with investigation into undervaluation of imported computer parts If an authority exercising extensive statutory and coercive powers is unable to ensure completion of investigation within a reasonable period, it would be unfair to keep the bank accounts frozen indefinitely DRI directed to de-freeze bank accounts forthwith - Costs of Rs. 5000/- awarded:DELHI HIGH COURT; |
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
