|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
PPF - Date of Realisation is date of deposit (See 'DDT') Prohibition on export of Pulses; FIEO for fixed exchange rate for exports; IRCTC to market Commonwealth Games tickets online; India, Canada sign pact in road safety and highway management; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Heath Service is input service for General Insurance Service? Impact of Finance Bill on Export of Service Rules; RBI CIRCULAR Buyback / Prepayment of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs); Deferred Payment Protocols dated April 30, 1981 and December 23, 1985 between Government of India and erstwhile USSR; MIXED BUZZ FIEO for fixed exchange rate for exports; India, Canada sign pact in road safety and highway management; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2010-TIOL-156-ITAT-DEL.pdf + it story.pdf Mcdonald S (India) (P) Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: October 1, 2009) Income tax - Sec 92, 40(a)(i) - Assessee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McDonald's Corporation (MC), USA - MC is in restaurant business - assessee-company was set up to operate MC business in India - enters into Master Licence Agreement with MC - advertising of business - whether Revenue is right in invoking Sec 92 to make adjustments for advertising cost being shared by the assessee with its franchises - whether TDS deducted but paid next year is allowable deduction in view of Sec 40(a)(i) The assessee could sub-licence the operation of Mc Donald's business with the approval of MC. In terms of the Master License agreement but was required to pay MC a royalty equal to 5 per cent of the gross sales and an initial franchise fee at the rate of US $ 45000 for each new restaurant opened during the year. MC also appointed appellant as its service operator in India under a Service agreement and in consideration of services covered in this agreement MC agreed to compensate the appellant for all expenditure incurred on the budgeted service along with a service fee of 10 per cent of authorized expenditure:DELHI ITAT; Shri S C Gupta Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: January 29, 2010) Income Tax - Section 147 - Assessee's return processed u/s 143(1)(a) - On information received from Customs AO issues notice u/s 148 - in view of the categorical statement made before the Customs Authorities AO determines undisclosed income u/s 69 and makes addition - CIT(A) confirms the addition - Held, the basis of the assessment order has diminished. The statements initially made have been successfully retracted. The proceedings under the Customs Act as well as under the FERA have been dropped. The department has not been able to discharge its burden of proof that the statements were not recorded under force, threat and coercion. In this regard, affidavits filed by the Assessee before the AO have not been rebutted. The action of the AO in making the statement of one person the basis for the addition in the Assessee's hands also, as such, falls. Not confronting the Assessee with such a statement and not allowing an opportunity to cross examine the witness is in stark violation of the natural justice principle of audi alterem partem. Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT; M/s Sietz Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: February 26, 2010) Income Tax - purchase of software - assessee claims it as revenue expenditure - AO treats it as capital expenditure - CIT(A) considers its as capital in nature - Held, the assessee has incurred expenditure on purchase of software and neither the AO nor ld. CIT(A) had examined the issue in the light of decision of Special Bench - the matter remanded to the file of AO with the directions to examine the question whether expenditure on computer software is capital or revenue in view of the criteria laid down by ITAT, Delhi Special Bench New Delhi in the case of Amway India Enterprises v/s DCIT. M/s Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: February 28, 2010) Income Tax - Section 147 - Assessee files return declaring loss - AO completes assessment u/s 143(3) - Later AO receives information from the office of DG Investigation regarding Assessee company as one among entry operators who had given entries to various beneficiaries - AO after recording reasons reopened assessment u/s 147 - Since the assessee did not produce the persons the AO came to the conclusion that Assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of transaction of share capital - CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment - Held, for reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years, the proviso to sec.147 is pressed into operation. The AO has failed to record reasons that there was failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all necessary facts for completion of his assessment. The reasons recorded are vague in nature. The reopening of assessment is bad in law in view of decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd and other decisions as there is no whisper or allegation that there has been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The assessment made by the AO annulled. Assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT; VLCC Health Care Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: February 12, 2010) Income Tax - Section 271(1)(c), 14A - assessee is in the business of running healthcare and beauty parlour centers - also runs centers in partnership and on franchisee basis - pays royalty - quantum proceedings - AO disallows part of royalty by invoking provisions of Sec 14A - CIT(A) and Tribunal agree with the AO - Revenue levies penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) confirms it - held, no penalty as the expenditure is allowable in the hands of the income generating apparatus being business of the partnership and the franchisee centers - there is neither concealment of income nor wrong furnishing of information - Assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s Autoprint Machinery Manufacturers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: January 22, 2010) Service Tax – CENVAT Credit – credit is admissible on installation and training service – credit cannot be denied on the ground that the service was not carried out at the factory premises :CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: January 22, 2010) Cenvat Credit on Garden Maintenance Service – whether on strength of consent letter issued by the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board credit can be allowed – in earlier case of appellant [ 2009-TIOL-554-CESTAT-MUM ] co-ordinate Bench allowed credit – matter debatable – pre-deposit waived and stay granted:MUMBAI CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION 2010-TIOL-196-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + cx story.pdf M/s Goradia Special Steels Ltd Vs UoI (Dated : March 9, 2010) Duty cannot be demanded from the Director of the company – tribunal was not right in ordering pre deposit of penalty from a company covered under SICA – directed to hear appeal: So far as penalty is concerned, the same was not recoverable from the Company so long as the Company was under the umbrella of section 22 of the SICA . Consequently, the Tribunal was not justified in directing pre-deposit to the extent of 50% of the penalty in its impugned order dated 19th June, 2009. To that extent the impugned order is liable to be set aside being bad and illegal. Appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal with direction to hear and decide the same on its own merits :BOMBAY HIGH COURT; CCE, Thane Vs Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd (Dated: January 13, 2010) Interest is required to be paid on supplementary invoices in view of SC decision in Commissioner vs SKF 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX – Revenue appeal allowed :MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Gem Spinner India Ltd Vs CEE, Pondicherry (Dated: December 24, 2009) Central Excise – 100% EOU – refund of CENVAT Credit – the appellants are not entitled for refund of credit on HSD as the same is not covered as input under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004:MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s Gem Spinner India Ltd Vs CEE, Pondicherry (Dated: November 27, 2009) Central Excise – 100% EOU – refund of CENVAT Credit – the appellants are not entitled for refund of credit on HSD as the same is not covered as input under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Prohibition on export of Pulses – regarding CASE LAWS 2010-TIOL-197-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + cus story.pdf M/s Su Jewels Exim Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated : March 9, 2010) An appellant cannot be worse off by being in appeal before the Tribunal – It is needless to mention here that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal should, in the absence of express words in the statute, be governed by the subject matter of the appeal. the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an order, so as to permit a ground to be raised by the Respondent which, if allowed, would made the position of the Appellant worse than what it was before. An appellant cannot be worse off by being in appeal before the Tribunal. No adverse order can be passed against the Petitioners in the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority. Customs Department directed to return bills of Entry: the bills of entry and other documents cannot be detained by the Respondents merely because the appeal is pending for final disposal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal preferred by the Petitioners is only against imposition of penalty. The counsel for the Respondents was unable to show any provision in law indicating that the Revenue is entitled to detain the documents till the hearing and final disposal of the appeal preferred by the Petitioners:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; |
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
