Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Recent Case Laws & Others

Expand Messages
  • Dipak Shah
    [2012] 19 taxmann.com 61 (CHHATTISGARH) IT : Where a diary recovered during search at assessee s premises revealed a list of persons and various amounts
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      [2012] 19 taxmann.com 61 (CHHATTISGARH)
      IT : Where a diary recovered during search at assessee's premises revealed a list of persons and various amounts mentioned against their names, said amounts could not be treated as assessee's unexplained investment when affidavits of aforesaid persons were not examined by AO Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 57 (DELHI)
      Advertisement expenses incurred continuously deductible - IT : Periodical advertising expenses to be incurred continuously in view of nature of expenses are allowable as revenue expenses Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 56 (BOM.)
      Deductibility of cess on green in case of tea company - IT : In case of tea business cess on green leaves is a part of expenditure incurred in business of growing and manufacture of tea Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 65 (KAR.)
      To harmonise CBDT Instruction 3/2011 (monetary limits for Revenue appeals) with National Litigation Policy,2011,Instruction be held retrospective and applicable to appeals pending in Courts/Tribunals as on date of Instruction - IT : National Litigation Policy,2011 expressly states that Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant; philosophy that 'the matters be left to Courts for ultimate decision' is to be discarded and the easy approach 'let the Court decide' must be eschewed and condemned Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 64 (BOM.)
      Share-broker entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in respect of non-payment by client of purchase price of shares - IT : Where brokerage of assessee-share broker is taxed in assessee's hands as its business income, it is evident that within meaning of section 36(2)(i) debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing income of assessee; debt comprises, inter alia, of value of shares transacted and brokerage payable by client on whose behalf transaction takes place; since brokerage as well as value of shares arise out of the same transaction, the test laid down by section 36(2)(i) is met; therefore, share-broker is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in respect of non-payment by client of purchase price of shares Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 42 (DELHI)
      No Legal right to claim reimbursement of losses; if received, taxable on receipt basis - IT : Where assessee did not have any legal right to claim reimbursement of export losses from sugar mills from whom it had purchased sugar for export, reimbursement of loss, was to be taxed on receipt basis Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 52 (KAR.)
      IT : An assessee is duty bound to make good actual duty it has paid on account of purchase of raw materials for producing finished products by producing proof of payment, etc., and in absence of such proof assessee could not reduce said amount from value of its closing stock Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 48 (KAR.)
      IT : Tribunal may only rectify mistake in order passed by it under section 254(1); and not review it Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 39 (DELHI)
      Reassessment on ground that part of royalty expenses allowed were capital in nature - IT : Where assessee's claim for payment of royalty was allowed after examining necessary details, reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on ground that a part of said expenditure was not allowable being capital in nature Read More
      Service Tax/GST
              CESTAT
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 62 (NEW DELHI - CESTAT)
      ST : Activity of establishing central server in different offices of transport department would not be covered under 'Business auxiliary service' Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 53 (NEW DELHI - CESTAT)
      Service Tax on sponsorship of IPL - ST : Sponsorship of IPL is, prima facie, not liable to service tax Read More
              SC/HC
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 63 (ALL.)
      ST : Where transportation activity was an integral part of repair and maintenance contract and nothing was charged for same separately, no service tax could be demanded on same Read More
      [2012] 19 taxmann.com 59 (CAL.)
      CL : Where winding-up petitioner financed company for purchasing goods, on behalf of company on agreed contractual term, on failure to make payment in full or to prove plea of overcharging, winding up application was to be allowed Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 60 (HYD. - ITAT)
      IT: Where grant of approval under section 80G(5) denied on ground that activities of trust will not be confined to India and assessee later rectified its object clause to confine its activities to India Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 66 (CHD. - ITAT)
      Where property referred by AO to Valuation Cell on direction of CIT(A), CIT(A) not to delete addition made by AO u/s 50C without waiting for report from Valuation Cell - IT : Legal fiction in section 50C cannot be extended to rope in purchasers, in context of undisclosed investment under section 69B Read More
          [2012] 19 taxmann.com 55 (MUM. - ITAT)
      Adjustment under section 10A(7) where profit diverted to group concern - IT : Where assessee had transferred profit of its group concern to it by showing lower purchase rate from that concern, adjustment under section 10A(7) was required Read More
      2012] 19 taxmann.com 54 (MUM. - ITAT)
      Income from sale of ship not a core activity of shipping company - IT: Activity of sale of old ships is not an activity arising from or related to operation of qualifying ships so as to say that same is a core activity of a tonnage tax company within meaning of clause (i) of sub- section (2) of section 115VI Read More


            
         
      2012-TIOL-170-HC-GAUHATI-IT-LB + Jawahar story

      CIT, Guwahati-I Vs Shri Jawahar Bhattacharjee (Dated : February 7, 2012)

      Income tax - Sections 54F, 263 - Whether assessment orders passed on wrong assumption of facts, on incorrect application of law, without due application of mind or without following principles of natural justice are not beyond the scope of Section 263 of the Act - Whether power u/s 263 is as much as the power of the AO to make assessment. - Ruled in favour of Revenue: GAUHATI HIGH COURT (LARGER BENCH)

      2012-TIOL-141-ITAT-AHM

      M/s Transpek Industry Ltd Vs ACIT, Baroda (Dated: December 12, 2011)

      Income Tax - Section 40A(3), Rule 6DD - Whether amount paid in cash exceeding the limits of the section 40A(3) warrants disallowance if the case does not fall under the exception of rule 6DD - Whether additional evidences which prove the claim of the assessee deserve admission. - Assessee's appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

      2012-TIOL-140-ITAT-AHM

      Puthenvila Chacko Verghese Vs ITO, Ahmedabad (Dated: December 16, 2011)

      Income Tax - Section 41(1) - Whether burden to prove that any benefit has been entertained by the assessee in relation to a liability in previous year is on revenue, and hence no addition is permissible under section 41(1) without the discharge of such burden.- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

      2012-TIOL-139-ITAT-AHM

      M/s Narayan Powertech Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Baroda (Dated: December 9, 2011)

      Income tax - Sections 36(1)(vii), 40A(2), 80IB, 80HHC - Whether it is required to establish that debts have become bad to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Whether interest and duty drawback would be allowable for deduction u/s 80 IB - Whether 80IB deduction is required to be reduced for claiming deduction u/s 80HHC. - Revenue's appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

      2012-TIOL-138-ITAT-AHM

      ACIT, Baroda Vs Shri Dhirajbhai B Patel (Dated: December 29, 2011)

      Income Tax - Sections 69, 132, 158BC, 158BG, 250 - Whether gold jewellery and FDRs found in a search operation could be taken an undisclosed investment by rejecting the assessee's claim that it was acquired out of his agricultural income. - Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT


             
         
                 
      SERVICE TAX SECTION

      2012-TIOL-296-CESTAT-MUM + Arihant story

      Arihant Telecommunication Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated : January 6, 2012)

      Appellant paying VAT to the State Government on sale of SIM cards and under bona fide belief Service Tax was also paid under the same challans - later, amount transferred to Central Government account - matter remanded for verification: CESTAT [ para 5 ] : MUMBAI CESTAT

      2012-TIOL-295-CESTAT-MUM

      M/s Deluxe Tyre Retreading Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated : January 13, 2012)

      Appellant under the bona fide belief that activity of tyre retreading is not liable to Service Tax - documents regarding purchase of inputs which were used in the said activity were not produced before adjudicating authority - since invoices produced by the appellant before CESTAT covers almost 35% of the amount of service provided, further deposit ordered of Rs. 1 lakh and after compliance matter to be heard afresh by adjudicating authority - Appeal as well as stay applications disposed of: [para 4] : MUMBAI CESTAT

      2012-TIOL-294-CESTAT-MUM

      Gammons (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated : January 5, 2012)

      Applicant undertaking activity of erection, commission and installation of transmission towers on behalf of Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. and classifying their activity under works contract service - Revenue alleging that activity is classifiable under the category of erection, commission and installation service and they are liable to pay service tax at the rate applicable - in view of Board Circular no. B1/16/2007-TRU dated 22.5.2007 activities undertaken by the applicant are covered under works contract services - prima facie demands are not sustainable - Stay granted: [para 2] : MUMBAI CESTAT



      CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

      2012-TIOL-298-CESTAT-MUM + Simplex story

      M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated : November 1, 2011)

      Merely because the Ready Mix Concrete has been transported by using dumpers from the Batching Plant installed at the site to various places in the site, it does not mean that the goods are not produced at the construction site - Notfn. 4/97-CE does not prescribe any spatial dimensions/restrictions for the site - prima facie benefit of notification available - Pre-deposit waived and recovery stayed: [para 5] : MUMBAI CESTAT

      2012-TIOL-297-CESTAT-DEL

      Shree Sharma Steel Re-Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated : December 8, 2011)

      Central Excise - Clandestine Clearances - Private Records - Confessional Statement - Electricity consumption record - Admissibility of evidence - Financial Hardship - Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - Assessee claims that the clearances recorded in private records are traded goods. No such claim made in the statements given or evidence produced to show purchase of traded goods. Further, demands based on electricity consumption is as per the record maintained by the assessee and is supported by other documents too. Prima facie no case made out for complete waiver of pre-deposit. Keeping in view the financial hardships and the interest of Revenue as provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, pre-deposit of Rs. 6 crore is ordered. (Para 16, 17 & 21)

      Conditions for grant of stay - While granting stay the two aspects to be considered are 'un-due hardship' and 'interests of revenue'. Undue-hardship means a burden hard to observe or perform in the circumstances of the case – In the present case, interest of revenue is to be safe-guarded and necessary conditions must be laid out before granting stay. (Para 20) - Pre-deposit ordered / Conditional stay granted : DELHI CESTAT



      CUSTOMS SECTION

      ADD NOTIFICATION

      ctariffadd12_015

      Anti-dumping duty on Fully Drawn or Fully Oriented Yarn extended for a year

      CIRCULAR

      cuscir12_006

      Ban on export of Cotton (Tariff Code 5201 and 5203) - reg.

      CASE LAWS

      2012-TIOL-293-CESTAT-MUM

      M/s DEE Pearls (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated : December 26, 2011)

      Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules - Once Tribunal has passed an order granting stay against recovery of penalties and waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of penalties, there is no question of recovery of any amount under the Head of penalties or duties from the appellants - only the amount that the department is entitled to recover would be the redemption fine which is covered by the bank guarantee – balance amount of the bank guarantee, if any, should be cancelled/returned – Application allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
      T : National Litigation Policy,2011 expressly states that Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant; philosophy that 'the matters be left to Courts for ultimate decision' is to be discarded and the easy approach 'let the Court decide' must be eschewed and condemned

      • Instruction 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 shows that Revenue has not applied its mind in this direction; no attempt is made to reduce pendency of litigation by filtering frivolous and vexatious matters from meritorious ones and said cases are withdrawn; instruction 3/2011 fulfils requirements of NLP, 2011 only partially, i.e., only in respect of future litigation, and not withdrawing pending litigation to save Court's time; one of ways of giving effect to NLP, 2011 is to make Instruction 3/2011 applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals as on date of Instruction

      • While Revenue periodically introduces KVSS and VDIS to give benefit to persons who are not filing returns and paying tax regularly, persons who are paying tax regularly and succeeded before ITAT in showing that there is no tax liability are made to face these litigations instead of concentrating their time and energy on productive work - [2012] 19 taxmann.com 65 (Karnataka)


      Japanese accounting gets rare ray of sunlight


      Japanese chipmaker Elpida files for bankruptcyRuling party rows over Lee ally's selectionChinese foreign minister to visit Seoul this week`Iran, N.K. nukes on summit agenda'Should big companies have to share profits?Korea, China, Japan to meet on investmentLinked workshop for sales professionalsKFDA commissioner to discuss policy directionAMCHAM to examine IPR during luncheonLecture on digital marketing in ChinaING art exhibition displays nature's elementsPotential for Yeosu is in tourism: ItalyRussia, Ukraine foiled plot to kill Putin: reportGreek deal leaves Europe on the road to disasterSarkozy in need of election miracle
      The auditing profession's top U.S. overseer usually does a flawless job of safeguarding the most embarrassing secrets of accounting firms and their corporate clients. Fortunately, every now and then, the watchdog slips up.

      Take the case of Kyoto Audit Corp., a Japanese affiliate of the Big Four auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers. On Feb. 14, the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board released its first-ever inspection report on the Kyoto-based firm.

      The report said the board's staff reviewed the firm's audits for two companies and found serious problems with both. The deficiencies were so severe, it appeared that "the firm at the time it issued its audit report had not obtained sufficient competent evidential matter to support its opinion on the issuer's financial statements," the report said. In other words, the companies' books could have been horribly wrong, and the auditors wouldn't have known it.

      Who were these two companies? The report didn't say, in keeping with the board's longtime policy of refusing to name the companies where its inspectors find botched audits. In this rare instance, though, it wasn't hard to figure out their identities.

      That's because Kyoto Audit has only two audit clients with U.S.-registered securities. One is Kyocera Corp., a maker of mobile phones and electronic equipment, which has a stock-market value of $17.2 billion. The other is Nidec Corp., the world's biggest maker of motors for hard-disk drives, which has a $13.6 billion market value. So there, the cat's out of the bag. Undoubtedly, the companies and the auditor would have preferred you not know.

      After last year's accounting-fraud scandal at Olympus Corp., the medical-equipment company whose books had been blessed by the Japanese arms of Ernst & Young and KPMG, few things would be more important to an investor in a Japanese manufacturer than the knowledge that its auditor did a lousy job. If investors can't trust the audit, they might not be able to trust the numbers.

      This is the fourth column I've written revealing the names of publicly held companies whose external audits were criticized in the board's inspection reports. Hopefully someday the board will change its policy, considering its stated mission is "to protect the interests of investors."

      Historically, the board has said it's prohibited from naming audit firms' clients by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created the regulator in 2002. As I've pointed out in previous columns, the plain language of the law undercuts this assertion.

      The act says the public portions of inspection reports "shall be made available in appropriate detail," subject to "the protection of such confidential and proprietary information as the board may determine to be appropriate." Put another way, it's the board's call whether to disclose companies' names, although the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the board, could overrule it. The obvious beneficiaries of the secrecy policy are the accounting firms and their audit clients.

      The board's inspectors conducted their review at Kyoto Audit in December 2010 and January 2011. The deficiencies they found included "the failure, in both audits, to perform adequate substantive analytical audit procedures to test revenue." Revenue, of course, is the most important line on the income statement.

      The report also cited Kyoto Audit's failures to perform sufficient procedures "to test the allowance for doubtful accounts" and "to test inventory valuation." The report didn't provide further details. In plain English, this means the firm hadn't done enough to check whether sales figures were accurate, customers could pay their bills, or unsold products were worth what the books said. Kyocera and Nidec are both based in Kyoto.

      Kyoto Audit's managing partner, Yukihiro Matsunaga, declined to discuss the firm's work for the companies. In an Oct. 24 letter to the board, Kyoto Audit said it performed additional audit procedures in response to the inspectors' findings. "The completion of those procedures did not result in changes to our audit reports or to the issuers' financial statements," the firm said. Lucky them.

      A spokeswoman for the accounting board, Colleen Brennan, declined to comment. So did a Nidec spokesman, Masahiro Nagayasu.

      A Kyocera spokesman, Judah Reynolds, said the company is "confident in the quality" of Kyoto Audit's work and that the information in Kyocera's financial reports "is of high quality and complies with all relevant requirements." He declined to comment on the inspection report.

      Founded in 2007, Kyoto Audit has a colorful history. In 2006, Pricewaterhouse's Japanese affiliate, Chuo Aoyama, was ordered by Japan's Financial Services Agency to suspend operations for two months after the regulator found the audit firm had helped Kanebo Ltd., a Japanese cosmetics company, falsify its financial reports. Three Chuo Aoyama auditors pleaded guilty to criminal charges.

      Chuo Aoyama later changed its name to Misuzu. After more accounting scandals surfaced at its clients, the firm shut down in 2007. The audit teams at Misuzu that had been covering Kyocera and Nidec (NJ) moved to the newly formed Kyoto Audit. The two companies switched audit firms that year along with them.

      Today, Pricewaterhouse classifies Kyoto Audit as a "cooperating firm." It's not a full-fledged member of the Big Four auditor's global network. However, it has the right to use Pricewaterhouse's audit methodology, and has access to the "expertise of the PwC network," according to Kyoto Audit's filings with the accounting board. A Pricewaterhouse spokesman, Mike Davies, declined to comment on the inspection report.

      Affiliations aside, what matters most to investors about this or any other accounting firm is whether it has blown the audit of a company in which they hold a stake. There's only one way the accounting board will ever shed its image as a protector of the industry it's supposed to be regulating: Start naming names. The public needs to know.

      By Jonathan Weil

      Jonathan Weil is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. ― Ed.

      (Bloomberg)





    • Dipak Shah
      www.cliofindia.cominfo@cliofindia.com ________________________________ COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS ... filing cases against each other, deemed to have waived
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        CLI
        www.cliofindia.com
        info@...

        COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS


        ISSUE DATED 9.3.2012

        Volume 170 Part 2


        SUPREME COURT
        ENGLISH CASES
        SAT
        DRAT
        JOURNAL
        NEWS-BRIEFS


        HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS


        F Where parties pursuing other remedies and filing cases against each other, deemed to have waived right to seek arbitration by their conduct : C. G. Holdings P. Ltd. v. Ramasamy Athappan (Mad) p. 93

        F Modification by CLB amounting to reversal of its earlier findings is perverse : C. G. Holdings P. Ltd. v. Ramasamy Athappan (Mad) p. 93

        F High Court will interfere with findings of CLB on facts based on irrelevant material : C. G. Holdings P. Ltd. v. Ramasamy Athappan (Mad) p. 93




        COMPANY LAW BOARD ORDERS



        F Transmission of shares cannot be sought on basis of succession certificate restrained by issuing authority : Nirav Jhaveri v. Mir-N-Mir P. Ltd. p. 68

        F Proper implementation of CLB order not to be defeated as falling beyond scope of CLB or on plea of new cause of action : C. G. Holdings P. Ltd. v. Cheran Enterprises P. Ltd. p. 73




        STATUTES AND NOTIFICATIONS


        Bills :
        F Prevention of Money-laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2011 : p. 102

        Circulars :
        SEBI Circulars :
        F Eligibility criteria for qualified depository participant-CIR/IMD/FII & C/4/2012, dated 25th January, 2012 : p. 100

        Regulations :
        F Securities and Exchange Board of India (Credit Rating Agencies) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2011 : p. 99

        Rules :
        F Cost Accounting Records (Petroleum Industry) Rules, 2011 : p. 65

        Notifications :
        F Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 : Notification under section 4 : Renewal of recognition to stock exchanges : p. 100


        COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD.
        No. 2, Vaithyaram Street,
        T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017.
        Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55
        Fax: (044) 24322015
        info@...
        To Unsubscribe : Reply back with "Unsubscribe" in subject followed by the key word "ITR" or "CC" or "VST" or "CCD" or "GSTR" or "ITR (Trib)", respectively or "All" if you do not want any Email. ITR : Income Tax Reports, CC : Company Cases, VST : VAT and Service Tax Cases, CCD : Consolidated Commercial Digest, GSTR : Goods and Service Tax Reports, ITR (Trib) : ITR'S Tribunal Tax Reports. Also send your feedback or comments to info@...


        Fr

      • Dipak Shah
        10-yr-old tax evasion cases may reopen Greater focus on international transactions Vrishti Beniwal / New Delhi Mar 09, 2012, 00:42 IST Ads by Google Hoover s -
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          10-yr-old tax evasion cases may reopen
          Greater focus on international transactions
          Vrishti Beniwal / New Delhi Mar 09, 2012, 00:42 IST

          Ads by Google
          Hoover's - Official Site : Company profiles, up-to-date news, & more. Search our listings now!
          www.hoovers.com
          In a significant step to bring back black money stashed by Indians in tax havens abroad, the coming Budget is likely to announce a measure to empower assessment officers to reopen tax evasion cases as old as 10 years, from the current limit of six years. Cases related to international transactions by individuals would particularly come under focus.
          The likely Budget proposal will allow the tax authorities to make use of information provided by various countries or other sources about money parked by Indians in low-tax jurisdictions. Currently, even if the tax authorities get information about secret foreign bank accounts of a person, they are bound by law to open the accounts only for the past six years.
          “Sometimes, we get past information from other sources, but we cannot investigate cases beyond six years. Many people have shifted their secret accounts in the last few years. So, there is need to get past information to nab the evaders,” said a finance ministry official.
          The government has been revising its treaties with many tax havens to crack down on evaders but many such revised agreements, including the one with Switzerland, will allow India to access information only with prospective effect. However, at times the government gets past information from a third party. An example is data shared by Germany on accounts of Indians in LGT Bank of Liechtenstein.
          The tax agreement with Singapore allows sharing of information for the past three years. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) with some jurisdictions allow the exchange of past information in criminal tax matters. India has been pushing these countries for the sharing of all past information.
          Earlier, the time limit for reopening assessment cases was 10 years, seven years and four years for quantums of evasion being over Rs 1 lakh, Rs 50,000 or nil, respectively. The NDA government in June 2001 had reduced the limit to six years if the income escaping assessment exceeded Rs 1 lakh and four years in other cases.
          The ministry now wants to again increase the limit to 10 years, particularly in relation to foreign transactions. It considered the option of increasing the limit to 16 years or completely removing it, but, the official said, that could draw flak from taxpayers.
          The ministry can seek information from taxpayers on unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. It can seek details on unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act.
          As DTAAs with many countries don’t allow name-fishing enquires, investigation of past records can help the authorities approach tax havens with more relevant details of persons suspected of tax evasion.
          Last month, Central Bureau of Investigation director A P Singh had said an estimated $500 billion of illegal money was deposited by Indians in tax havens abroad. He said Indians were the largest depositors in Swiss banks.
          However, the Swiss government later issued a press release saying, "There has been speculation about the amount of wealth held by Indians in Swiss banks. Such estimates and statistics lack evidence and are uncorroborated.”
          The interim recommendations of a Bharatiya Janata Party task force in 2009 had estimated the amount of black money stashed abroad at $500 billion to $1.4 trillion.



        • Dipak Shah
          Dear Subscriber,   The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org. Crompton Creaves Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) No s. 195 TDS
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 9, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Subscriber,
             

            The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.


            Crompton Creaves Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)


            No s. 195 TDS Liability On Payer If Payee Not Assessed
             
            The assessee made a public issue of Global Depository Receipts (GDR) for which it engaged international lead managers like Jardine Fleming, Merrill Lynch etc and paid management and underwriting commission of Rs. 7.68 crores without deducting TDS. The AO & CIT (A) held that the said commission constituted “fees for technical services” and that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 195. The assessee was held to be in default u/s 201. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that as no action has been taken by the department against the payees and the time for taking such action had expired, no order u/s 195 & 201 could be passed. HELD by the Tribunal:

            Regards,

            Editor,

            ---------------------
            Latest:

            Council of ICAI vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta (Delhi High Court) CA issuing wrong s. 80HHC certificate is guilty of “gross professional misconduct”


          • sanjay kapoor
            dear sri dipak ji my assessee is contractor and engaged in doing the work of coal handling at thermal power projects. the contractee had deducted the damarage
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 9, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

              dear sri dipak ji
              my assessee is contractor and engaged in doing the work of coal handling at thermal power projects. the contractee had deducted the damarage which was paid to the railway from bill of contractor.whether it is a allwabale expenses in the hand of the contractor.


              ca sanjay kapoor
              On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:16:17 +0530 wrote
              >




















              Dear Subscriber,


              The following important judgement is available for download atitatonline.org.


              Crompton Creaves Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)


              No s. 195 TDS Liability On Payer If Payee Not Assessed



              The assessee made a public issue of Global Depository Receipts (GDR)
              for which it engaged international lead managers like Jardine Fleming,
              Merrill Lynch etc and paid management and underwriting commission of Rs.
              7.68 crores without deducting TDS. The AO & CIT (A) held that the
              said commission constituted “fees for technical services” and
              that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 195. The assessee was
              held to be in default u/s 201. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued
              that as no action has been taken by the department against the
              payees and the time for taking such action had expired, no order u/s 195
              & 201 could be passed. HELD by the Tribunal:

              (Click Here To Read More)





































              Regards,
              Editor,
              itatonline.org







































































































































































              ---------------------Latest:
              Council of ICAI vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta (Delhi High Court) CA issuing wrong s. 80HHC certificate is guilty of “gross professional misconduct”

























              Follow Rediff Deal ho jaye! to get exciting offers in your city everyday.
            • Dipak Shah
              Do u file return under Presumptive Tax!! Demmurage should not be a penalty for any thing wrong illegal way. If it is your fault then yes. If not yes.
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 10, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Do u file return under Presumptive Tax!! Demmurage should not be a penalty for any thing wrong illegal way. If it is your fault then yes.
                If not yes.


                From: sanjay kapoor <sanjay_kapoor1061@...>
                To: ICAI_CIRC_MEERUT_CA@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 11:56 PM
                Subject: {Amresh's CA's} deduction of railway damarage from the bill of the contractor

                 

                dear sri dipak ji
                my assessee is contractor and engaged in doing the work of coal handling at thermal power projects. the contractee had deducted the damarage which was paid to the railway from bill of contractor.whether it is a allwabale expenses in the hand of the contractor.


                ca sanjay kapoor
                On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:16:17 +0530 wrote
                >




















                Dear Subscriber,


                The following important judgement is available for download atitatonline.org.


                Crompton Creaves Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)


                No s. 195 TDS Liability On Payer If Payee Not Assessed



                The assessee made a public issue of Global Depository Receipts (GDR)
                for which it engaged international lead managers like Jardine Fleming,
                Merrill Lynch etc and paid management and underwriting commission of Rs.
                7.68 crores without deducting TDS. The AO CIT (A) held that the
                said commission constituted “fees for technical services” and
                that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 195. The assessee was
                held to be in default u/s 201. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued
                that as no action has been taken by the department against the
                payees and the time for taking such action had expired, no order u/s 195
                201 could be passed. HELD by the Tribunal:

                (Click Here To Read More)





































                Regards,
                Editor,
                itatonline.org







































































































































































                ---------------------Latest:
                Council of ICAI vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta (Delhi High Court) CA issuing wrong s. 80HHC certificate is guilty of “gross professional misconduct”

























                Follow Rediff Deal ho jaye! to get exciting offers in your city everyday.


              • Abhai Agarwal
                it should be allowable. ... -- CA.ABHAI AGARWAL 148,Civil Lines Opp.ADM(E) Residence Bareilly. contact:09456407530,09359250004 it should be allowable. On Sat,
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 10, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  it should be allowable.

                  On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@...> wrote:
                   

                  Do u file return under Presumptive Tax!! Demmurage should not be a penalty for any thing wrong illegal way. If it is your fault then yes.
                  If not yes.


                  From: sanjay kapoor <sanjay_kapoor1061@...>
                  To: ICAI_CIRC_MEERUT_CA@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 11:56 PM
                  Subject: {Amresh's CA's} deduction of railway damarage from the bill of the contractor

                   

                  dear sri dipak ji
                  my assessee is contractor and engaged in doing the work of coal handling at thermal power projects. the contractee had deducted the damarage which was paid to the railway from bill of contractor.whether it is a allwabale expenses in the hand of the contractor.


                  ca sanjay kapoor
                  On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:16:17 +0530 wrote
                  >




















                  Dear Subscriber,


                  The following important judgement is available for download atitatonline.org.


                  Crompton Creaves Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)


                  No s. 195 TDS Liability On Payer If Payee Not Assessed



                  The assessee made a public issue of Global Depository Receipts (GDR)
                  for which it engaged international lead managers like Jardine Fleming,
                  Merrill Lynch etc and paid management and underwriting commission of Rs.
                  7.68 crores without deducting TDS. The AO CIT (A) held that the
                  said commission constituted “fees for technical services” and
                  that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 195. The assessee was
                  held to be in default u/s 201. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued
                  that as no action has been taken by the department against the
                  payees and the time for taking such action had expired, no order u/s 195
                  201 could be passed. HELD by the Tribunal:

                  (Click Here To Read More)





































                  Regards,
                  Editor,
                  itatonline.org







































































































































































                  ---------------------Latest:
                  Council of ICAI vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta (Delhi High Court) CA issuing wrong s. 80HHC certificate is guilty of “gross professional misconduct”

























                  Follow Rediff Deal ho jaye! to get exciting offers in your city everyday.





                  --
                  CA.ABHAI AGARWAL
                  148,Civil Lines
                  Opp.ADM(E) Residence
                  Bareilly.
                  contact:09456407530,09359250004

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.