|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Treaty shopping and use of conduits approved by Advance Ruling Authority (See DIRECT TAX BASKET'); Minister calls for faster roll-out of city gas distribution projects (See 'Mixed Buzz'); Tax on film distribution - Too much taxing! (See 'Special Column'); Women farmers need to be focus of development strategies: UN (See 'Mixed Buzz'); |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Tax on film distribution - Too much taxing! MIXED BUZZ Minister calls for faster roll-out of city gas distribution projects; Women farmers need to be focus of development strategies: UN; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CBDT INSTRUCTION Periodicity of meetings of Committees of Write off of irrecoverable demands and raising of monetary ceiling matter reg.; CASELAWS 2010-TIOL-20-ARA-IT.pdf + e-trade story.pdf E Trade Mauritius Ltd (Dated : March 22, 2010) Income tax - Sec 90, 112, 197, 264 - India-Mauritius DTAA - Article 13 - whether capital gains arising out of sale of shares of an Indian company by a Mauritius-based subsidiary of an American Company are subject to Indo-Mauritius DTAA or Indo-USA DTAA - whether the concept of beneficial ownership is relevant for Article 13 relating to capital gains - whether Circular No 789 is applicable for dividends or capital gains or both E-Trade Mauritius Limited (ETM), a subsidiary of an American company which in turn is a subsidiary of one E-Trade Financial Corporation (ETFC), sold its entire shareholding of 43.85 percent of the equity share capital of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Investmart Ltd, an Indian company to one HSBC Violet Investments (Mauritius) Limited. At the relevant point in time, ETM did not have any Permanent Establishment in India. CIT, Madurai Vs M/s Bhojraj Textile Mills Ltd (Dated: February 8, 2010) Income tax - Sec 37 - revenue vs capital expenditure - SC Larger Bench upholds apex court decisions in Saravana Spinning Mills and Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills case in favour of Revenue: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA; 2010-TIOL-21-SC-IT.pdf + reliance story.pdf CIT, Ahmedabad Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 17, 2010) Income tax - 271(1)(c) Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty under Section 271(1) (c): By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271(1 )( c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. As the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty under Section 271(1) (c).: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: November 26, 2009) Service Tax Separate legal entity Scope of levy In the context of service tax liability, different units of a corporate entity will not make them separate legal entities for the purpose of leviability to service tax and when one renders service to oneself service tax is not leviable. (Para 2): CHENNAI CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION M/s GTC Industries Ltd CCE, Vadodara (Dated: November 11, 2009) Central Excise Refund while remanding the case, the Tribunal allowed the refund and directed the lower authority only to verify the correctness of the amount claimed Refund could not have been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment by the lower authority - remand order not challenged does not give liberty to lower authorities to act independently. : CHENNAI CESTAT; CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Lucas Tvs Ltd (Dated: December 09, 2009) Central Excise Duty demand set aside and later re-confirmed Liability to interest Relevant date Confirmed demand which was initially set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) reconfirmed at a later date. Relevant date for calculation of interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be the date of reconfirmation of demand and not the date of earlier confirmation of duty. (Para 2) : CHENNAI CESTAT; CCE, Pondicherry Vs M/s General Optics Asia Ltd (Dated: December 08, 2009) Central Excise 100% EOU CT-3 Exemption Notification - Eligibility The respondents have obtained Epoxy Primer and Shalideck for building an Anti-static carpet insitu', which satisfies the requirement of Notification No.1/95 dated 04.01.95 that allows exemption for parts and consumables of Anti-static carpet. Revenue appeal dismissed. (Para 2) : CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION 2010-TIOL-183-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + CPS Textiles.pdf M/s CPS Textiles P Ltd Vs Joint Secretary (Dated : December 3, 2009) Customs Drawback Description of goods in invoice and shipping bill for export of Poly Acrylic/Wool/Lycra Blended Knitted Garments merits classification under S. No. 60.07 of Drawback Schedule and not 61.01 as claimed by petitioner When interest under Section 75A(2) is mandatory and automatically applies for recovery of excess drawback, no separate notice required for recovery of interest : MADRAS HIGH COURT; |
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
