|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ms Vijai Lakshmi Sharma is new Member of CBEC; likely to get Service tax charge; DG (Audit) Gautam Ray retiring today; Govt defers levy of service tax on transport of goods by rail for three more months; CBEC issues Custom exchange rate notification for April; UN Chief accepts Pakistan's request to delay release of report on Bhutto killing; India holds talks with US, Kuwait, Mexico and Indonesia for Cooperation in oil sector; Launch of mobile portability service further extended to June 2010; Siliguri Central Excise detects service tax evasion of Rs 1.99 Cr under renting of property category; Launch of mobile portability service further extended to June 2010; India should do away with death penalty: Amnesty International; Women's reservation bill in second phase of budget session to be tabled in Lok Sabha; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY Why different time limits for filing appeals under Service Tax and Central Excise? Central Excise Law is now more 'interesting'! OFFICE ORDER Vijay Lakshmi Sharma appointed as new Member; MIXED BUZZ UN Chief accepts Pakistan's request to delay release of report on Bhutto killing; India holds talks with US, Kuwait, Mexico and Indonesia for Cooperation in oil sector; Launch of mobile portability service further extended to June 2010; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
CIT Vs M/s Veer Overseas Ltd (Dated : March 17, 2010) Income tax - Sec 80HHC, 147, 148 - Assessee is an exporter - claims deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB receipts - reassessment initiated after four years limitaion period - notice u/s 148 - Tribunal takes the view that the assessee had disclosed all facts before the AO and there is no concealment of facts - held, it is not a fit case for invoking Sec 147 - no substantial question of law involved - Revenue's appeal dismissed:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT; Arthur Anderson & Co Vs ACIT (Dated : March 19, 2010) Income tax - Writ - Sec 147, 244A, 220 - Assessee files return along with audited accounts and audit report u/s 44AB - discloses an interest income of Rs 4.91 Cr - in the computation of income assessee reduces an interest amount of Rs 50.14 lakhs - further states that the interest income represents interest received u/s 244A, net of interest paid u/s 220 - AO raises query and seeks details - reassessment proceedings after four years u/s 147 - Assessee raises objections - Revenue takes the plea that since u/s 40(ii) the tax paid or payable is not admissible expenditure, the income assessable to tax has escaped untaxed - writ petition - held, the invocation of Sec 147(1) is not sustainable as the assessee has not only disclosed the entire facts in its return but also furnished detailed report in reply to the AO's query but the AO overlooked the same - Assessee's petition allowed:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; 2010-TIOL-159-ITAT-MUM.pdf + it story.pdf Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 25, 2009) Income Tax - Sec 195 - Indo-UAE DTAA- Articles 4, 7, 12 - Whether payment could be made without deduction of tax at source to a company which did not pay any income tax in UAE - whether benefits of the Indo-UAE treaty are available to such persons:MUMBAI ITAT; Bank Of America Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: February 22, 2010) Income tax - condonation of delay - Sec 253(2), 192(1), 201(1) - Assessee is a foreign bank - takes houses on hire for accommoation of its employees - pays refundable deposits to landlords - AO makes addition for notional interest on refundable deposits for computing perquisite value under rule 3(a) - CIT(A) grants part relief - assessee files appeal with a delay of 1695 days and seeks condonation of delay on the ground that its staff inadvertantly filed the appeal before the ACIT (TDS) in the Income Tax Department - held, presuming that the office staff of the assessee bank inadvertently filed the appeal in the wrong office, but at-least, the assessee could have paid the Tribunal fees on the alleged date of filing the appeal Memo in the office of the ACIT, Circle (TDS) and it cannot be said that as the assessee was not aware that the Tribunal Fee is required to be paid for filing the appeal in the Tribunal which was paid on 12.12.2006. Even applying the rule of the human probability, the explanation offered by the assessee Bank is not acceptable on facts. Assessee has failed to explain reasonable cause for inordinate delay in filing the present appeal as per provisions of section 253(2) - condonation of delay denied - Assessee's appeal dismissed:MUMBAI ITAT; Lactose (India) Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: March 4, 2010) Income Tax - ad hoc disallowance of share issue expenses - AO observes that the assessee has increased paid up share capital - however, does not claim any expense on this account and hence disallows adhoc expense - CIT(A) affirms the action of the AO - Before Tribunal assessee contends that in fact no share expense are incurred in as much as the paid up capital is increased by passing board resolution and there is only one company who subscribes for shares - held that contention of the assessee are plausible and hence AO and CIT (A) are wrong - Assessee's appeal allowed. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
SERVICE TAX SECTION NOTIFICATION Transport of goods by rail - abatement to be effective from July; Levy of service tax on transport of goods by rail deferred by three months; Transport of goods by rail - April becomes July; CASE LAWS CST, Chennai Vs Overnite Express Ltd (Dated: January 8, 2010) Service Tax – Courier Service partly performed in India and partly outside India – Not liable for service tax:CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s SKM Egg Products Export (India) Ltd Vs CCE (ST), Salem (Dated: January 22, 2010) Service Tax – Service Tax on import of service is applicable only with effect from 18.4.2006 in view of the Bombay High Court order in Indian National Shipowners Associations upheld by the Supreme Court reported in 2009-TIOL-129-SC-ST:CHENNAI CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION CCE & CC, Surat Vs M/s Bhagyoday Silk Industries (Dated : February 17, 2010) Central Excise – Penalty – Option of payment of reduced penalty under Section 11AC to be mentioned in adjudication orders in terms of Board Circular dated 22.05.2008 – Adjudicating authority directed to provide options to the assessee to pay interest and penalty @25% within 30 days in terms of provisos to Section 11AC – Assessee to comply with the said directions failing which they would be liable to pay 100% penalty:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; M/s SRF Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: December 29, 2009) Central Excise – provisional assessment – assessment during the period from 01.03.86 to 28.02.87 – to held the assessments as provisional, either there should be a provisional classification or there should be an order under Rule 9B empowering the clearance on the basis of such provisional classification – since the clearances were made based on provisional classification, assessments to be treated as only provisional – demand of duty upheld:CHENNAI CESTAT; CCE, Nashik Vs Sunita Pipes Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 13, 2010) Shortage of goods – allegations of clandestine removal – once the duty liability was never disputed and the amount of duty was paid, there is no need of any proof to be discharged by Revenue – penalty under section 11AC imposable in view of SC decision in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009-TIOL-63-SC-CX – Revenue appeal allowed:MUMBAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION CBEC issues Custom exchange rate notification for April; CASE LAWS 2010-TIOL-200-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + cus story.pdf Mr Rakesh Dhir Vs UoI (Dated : March 15, 2010) Customs - amendment of consignee's name in the IGM – Deputy Commissioner order refusing to change the names set aside; directed to consider afresh in a reasoned order: Sub section (3) of Section 30 lays down that if the proper officer is satisfied that the import manifest or import report is in any way incorrect or incomplete, and that there is no fraudulent intention, he may permit it to be amended or supplemented. It is now well settled that the power of judicial review of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India includes all cases where the orders are passed by the authorities or even where the authorities have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. It may be stated that the statutory discretion cannot be fettered by self created rules or policy :BOMBAY HIGH COURT; |
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
