TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
January 9, 2012
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
Income Tax
TMI SMS
Highlights / Catch Notes
-
Income Tax:
Assessment - General - Specified provisions of the Act which shall apply to Centralised Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011. - Ntf. No. 03/2012 Dated: January 4, 2012
-
Income Tax:
Centralised Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011. - Ntf. No. 02/2012 Dated: January 4, 2012
-
Income Tax:
Income-tax (First Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Insertion of rule 11-OA and form no. 3cn. - Ntf. No. 01/2012 Dated: January 2, 2012
-
Income Tax:
Income-tax authorities - Control of - DGIT (International Taxation) - Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 279(E) - Under section 118 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Transfer Pricing Officer referred. - Ntf. No. 63/2011 Dated: December 30, 2011
-
Income Tax:
Payment for software - payment made in that regard would constitute 'royalty' for imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill as per clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act..... - HC
-
Income Tax:
FBT - gift - 'Sales Promotion and Publicity' - the expenditure on gifts could not be treated as trade scheme or for promotion of company's product as per clause O of sub-section 2 of section 115WB..... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Charitable Trust- voluntary accumulations - the charitable trust cannot list all its objects as purposes for accumulation of income under section 11(2)..... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Disallowances u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - AO being unable to establish the excessiveness or unreasonableness of the payments made by the assessee, when compared with the fair market value of the services rendered by them, the disallowances made were not warranted...... - AT
-
DGFT:
Export of 8,300 MTs of white sugar to USA under Tariff Rate Quota. - Cir. No. 90 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 Dated: January 6, 2012
-
DGFT:
Allocation of 10,000 MTs of white sugar for the year 2011-12 (October, 2011- September, 2012) for export to EU under CXL Quota. - Cir. No. 89 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 Dated: January 6, 2012
-
DGFT:
Amendment in Appendix-3 to Schedule-2 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export and Import Items,2009-14-regarding supply of SCOMET Items from DTA to SEZ. - Ntf. No. 93 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 Dated: January 6, 2012 - DGFT
-
Service Tax:
Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Registration - Conversion of temporary based registration (STC) into PAN based registration. - Cir. No. 15/2011-ST Dated: November 15, 2011
-
Service Tax:
Just imparting training in certain areas to the Officers of certain organizations does not amount to rendering the service of "Management Consultancy" either directly or indirectly to that organization. .... - AT
-
Central Excise:
Payment of higher duty by an 100% EHTP at the instance of department - claim of refund - provision of unjust enrichment not applicable.... - AT
-
Central Excise:
Refund of accumulated credit - Rule 5 of CCR - period of 1 year for the purpose of limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 has to be counted from the date on which final conclusion is reached that the credit cannot be utilized..... - AT
Articles
Notifications
Circulars / Instructions / Orders
News
Case Laws:
-
Income Tax
-
2011 (12) TMI 146
Maintainability of appeal against levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C – adjustment of cash seized against advance tax liability – date from which adjustment would be effective – adjustment of cash seized from third party against the liability of the assessee - Held that:- Charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, and 234C is very much part and parcel of assessment proceedings and is an order against the assessee to which the assessee denies his liability to be assessed. Therefore, appeal against charging of interest under those sections is maintainable as in the case of an assessment order. The liability to pay the advance-tax constitutes a part of existing liability as per section 132B(1)(i). As per section 132B, the seized assets to be applied to the discharge of existing liabilities. Thus, the cash seized during the course of search is required to be adjusted against taxes due including advance-tax for the purpose of computation of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. The adjustment towards the advance-tax would be from the date when it was seized. Further, cash seized from third party was found to be the cash of the assessee and this fact is not disputed therby, it is adjustable against the demand created on the assessee. Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 145
Preemptive purchase by the Central Government u/s 269 UD (1) – alleged undervaluation of property - cost of construction of flat to be received in lieu of consideration taken and its fair market value ignored while valuing property resulting in undervaluation – Petitioners agreed to give possession of the subject property on compliance with the obligations of the Transferee under the Agreement by Appropriate Authority - Appropriate Authority has not tendered the payment to the owners and amount was deposited by the Central Government in the P.D. Account of Appropriate Authority prior to the passing of the impugned orders - Difference in total consideration valued and as stated in order to be payable to transferor - Held that:- By ignoring fair market value of flat during valuation, there was an inherent flaw in the valuation of the said property by the Valuation Officer. Appropriate Authority has mechanically accepted the valuation and on this count alone the impugned orders would stand vitiated. Further Section 269 UF (1) stipulates consideration for such purchase, an amount equal to the amount of the apparent consideration. There was complete non application of mind on the part of the Appropriate Authority in stating in the impugned order that the amount payable was Rs.18,68,430/ when the apparent consideration was admittedly Rs.25,14,480/. Quantum of deposit is invalid Moreover, neither dispute was to title of property nor to the persons who should receive the payment, thereby, conditions mentioned in 269UG(2) and 269UG(3) are not satisfied which permit the Central Government to deposit the purchase price with the Appropriate Authority (instead of tender to the owners). Therefore, the deposit made in the P.D. account of the Appropriate Authority by the Central Government was impermissible and not in accordance with law. In view of the failure on the part of the Appropriate Authority to tender the apparent consideration within the period set out in Section 269UG of the Act, it has to be held that the order passed under Section 269UD(1) of the Act stood abrogated and the property is revested to the Petitioners. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|
