TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
January 16, 2012
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
Income Tax
Highlights / Catch Notes
-
Customs:
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of Saccharin originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China - Ntf. No. 7 /2012-Customs (ADD) Dated: January 13, 2012
-
Customs:
Rescinds Notification No. 136/2009-Customs, dated the 9th December, 2009 - Ntf. No. 6/2012-Customs (ADD) Dated: January 13, 2012
-
Customs:
Regarding anti-dumping duty on imports of Cellophane Transparent Film (CTF) originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China - Ntf. No. 5/2012-Customs (ADD) Dated: January 13, 2012
-
Customs:
Regarding import of Phosphoric Acid of all grades and all concentrations (excluding Agriculture / Fertilizer Grade) originating in, or exported from, Israel and Taiwan - Ntf. No. 4 /2012-Customs (ADD) Dated: January 13, 2012
-
Customs:
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of Nylon Filament Yarn originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Thailand and Korea RP - Ntf. No. 3 /2012-Customs (ADD) Dated: January 13, 2012
-
Customs:
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of Silk fabrics originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China - Ntf. No. 2 /2012-Customs (ADD) Dated: January 13, 2012
-
Customs:
Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority - Ntf. No. F.No. 437/09/2011-Cus. IV Dated: January 10, 2012
-
DGFT:
Filing of applications for DEPB in cases of exports made under “EPCG Shipping Bills” for items “Cotton yarn including Melange yarn” from 01.04.2011 to 04.08.2011 and ‘Cotton’ from 01.10.2010 to 04.08.2011. - Cir. No. 52 (RE-2010)/2009-14 Dated: January 12, 2012
-
DGFT:
Amendment in Public Notice No. 90 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 6.1.2012 regarding export of 8,300 MTs of sugar to USA under Tariff Rate Quota. - Cir. No. 91 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 Dated: January 12, 2012
-
FEMA:
Foreign investment in Single – Brand Retail Trading Amendment to the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Scheme - Cir. No. 67 Dated: January 13, 2012
-
FEMA:
(I) Scheme for Investment by Qualified Foreign Investors in equity shares (II) Scheme for Investment by Qualified Foreign Investors in Rupee Denominated Units of Domestic Mutual Funds – Revision - Cir. No. 66 Dated: January 13, 2012
-
Central Excise:
Revised Treaty of Trade between India and Nepal. - Cir. No. 958/1/2012-CX Dated: January 13, 2012
Articles
Notifications
Customs-
07/2012 - dated
13-1-2012
-
ADD
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of Saccharin originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China
-
06/2012 - dated
13-1-2012
-
ADD
Rescinds Notification No. 136/2009-Customs, dated the 9th December, 2009
-
05/2012 - dated
13-1-2012
-
ADD
Regarding anti-dumping duty on imports of Cellophane Transparent Film (CTF) originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China
-
04/2012 - dated
13-1-2012
-
ADD
Regarding import of Phosphoric Acid of all grades and all concentrations (excluding Agriculture / Fertilizer Grade) originating in, or exported from, Israel and Taiwan
-
03/2012 - dated
13-1-2012
-
ADD
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of Nylon Filament Yarn originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Thailand and Korea RP
-
02/2012 - dated
13-1-2012
-
ADD
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of Silk fabrics originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China
-
02/2012 - dated
13-1-2012
-
Cus (NT)
Amends Notification No. 36/2001-Customs(N.T) dated the 3rd August 2001
-
F.No. 437/09/2011-Cus. IV - dated
10-1-2012
-
Cus (NT)
Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority
Circulars / Instructions / Orders
News
Case Laws:
-
Income Tax
-
2012 (1) TMI 12
Deduction u/s 80IC – Quantum of deduction u/s 80IC – new industrial undertaking set up by the assessee in the A.Y. 2005-06 at Dehradun – various documents placed by assessee to prove the existence of Dehradun unit/undertaking - Held that:- In view of the factual findings recorded by the CIT (A), affirmed by the Tribunal, and non-placement of any contrary material or documents by Revenue, there is no reason to interfere with the order of allowing deduction u/s 80IC to assessee. - Decided against the Revenue. The assessee may be eligible u/s 80 IC but the quantum of deduction is an incidental but an important aspect which must be considered and examined even though no question has been raised by the appellant on this aspect. The Tribunal did not examine the question of quantum of deduction inspite of the factual matrix referred to and stated in the assessment order. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide afresh the quantum of deduction u/s 80IC. - Decided in favor of revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 158
Whether the first appellate authority, namely, CIT(Appeals) or DCIT (Appeals) have inherent power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them u/s 246/246A of Act respectively – appeal preferred u/s 246A - application for stay of entire disputed demand made u/s 220 (3) and 220 (6) – claim rejected and coercive measures taken - Held that:- First appellate authority, namely; DCIT (Appeals) or CIT (Appeals) have inherent, implied and ancillary powers to grant stay against the recovery of disputed demand of tax while seized of the appeal filed before them in accordance with Section 246 or 246A of the Act. Such inherent powers have to be inferred even in the absence of any specific statutory provision conferring the power to grant stay upon such authorities under the Act. Section 220(6) only give discretion to the Assessing Authority, not to treat the assessee in default and doesnot confer power to grant stay of demand. Therefore, such powers have to be exercised in accordance with Instruction No. 95 dated 21.08.1969. which states that where the income determined on assessment was substantially higher than the returned income viz. twice the later amount or more, the collection of the taxes in dispute to be held in abeyance till the decision of the appeals provided there was no fault on the part of the assessee. In present case , the main additions are trading additions on the basis of GP rates, the validity of which is subject matter of appeal before the C.I.T. (Appeals). Thus, this Court in view of Instruction No.95 dated 21.08.1969, would stay the recovery of entire balance amount from the assessee, while directing the C.I.T. (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal of the assessee within a period of six months from date of order. The attachment of bank accounts of the assessee already attached by the Assessing Authority are also be lifted. The assessee may also file stay application before the C.I.T. (Appeals), who may also consider such stay application on its own merits upon the relevant factors. Further, it is directed that first appellate authorities and assessing authorities would act in accordance with the said decision in the cases of other appellant assessees within the State of Rajasthan also. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 157
Validity of computation of Arm Length Price(ALP) by TPO of transcation not referred to him by A.O. - Determination of ALP of advertising expenses – Interest leviable u/s 234B, 234D – A.Y. 2002-03 – Held that:- TPO could not take cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for computation in arms length price u/s 92-C. The provisions of section 92-CA(2A) effective from 01.06.11 are prospective in nature and will not apply for the A.Y. under consideration i.e. 2002-03. Therefore, assessing officer is directed to delete the addition made on the basis of the report of the TPO - Decided in favor of assessee. Charging of interest u/s 234-B and 234-D are mandatory. However, provisions of section 234-D have been inserted in the statute with effect from 1/06/2003. Therefore, 234-B interest will be chargeable on tax payable by the assessee after giving effect to this order and interest u/s 234-D will not be leviable in A.Y. 2002-03 under consideration.- Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 154
Interest u/s 234B – advance tax not paid - entire income subject to TDS - Held that:- Assessee had no liability to pay advance tax in view of the fact that his entire income was subject to tax at source. Thus, no interest is chargeable u/s 234B. This issue also stands concluded in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated (2010 - TMI - 78020 - Delhi High Court). Hence, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
|
