Refined or white sugar, imported upto 31st December 2010 exempted from Customs duty-Customs Tariff Notification No.8     excise exemption notification for Jammu & Kashmir modified-Central Excise Tariff Notification No.1    Air India may lower retirement age to 55 to cut cost    Board of Approval to decide fate of denotification of Essar's Hazira SEZ on 11th February      Revenue's comments on 1st Discussion Paper on GST-click on the link below for details      SC rules service of notice on the assessee under Section  143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a  pre-requisite for  framing   the  block  assessment   under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961-AIT-2010-43-SC      HC rules assessee is entitled to benefit under Income Tax on delayed payment of PF if the payment is made before the return is filed-AIT-2010-42-HC     Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amount received by the foreign company from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the contract is essentially in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12.4 of DTAA and cannot be regarded as consideration for the sale of designs and drawings-AIT-2010-38-AAR       Authority for Advance Ruling rules payment received by the applicant from VARs (“third party re-sellers”) on account of supplies of software products to the end-customers (from whom the licence fee is collected and appropriated by VAR) does not result in income in the nature of royalty to the applicant and moreover payments received by the applicant cannot be taxed as business profits in India in the absence of permanent establishment as envisaged by Article 7 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty-AIT-2010- 36-AAR    lending or borrowing money between two associated enterprises comes within the ambit of international transaction and whether the same is at arms length price has to be considered-The question of rate of interest on the borrowing loan is an integral part of arms length price redetermination in this context-AIT-2010-37-ITAT     Export and Import of Currency-RBI Circular No.30       HC rules a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable for questioning reopening of the assessment in a case such as this where the preconditions for the exercise of the power have not been fulfilled-recourse to the power under Section 147 cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment-AIT-2010-35-HC     Definitive Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Carbon Black used in rubber applications falling under sub heading 2803 00 10, originating in, or exported from, Australia, China PR, Russia and Thailand-Customs Tariff Notification No.6      Tariff Value for import of Brass scrap is 3597 and for poppy seeds 4392-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10    Adjustment of “Advance Tax in respect of Fringe Benefits” for Assessment Year 2010-11 against “Advance Tax”-Income Tax Circular No.2     CBDT clarifies it is the choice of the assessee whether to file an objection before the Dispute Resolution panel against the draft assessment order or not to exercise this option and file an appeal later before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the AO    
Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC        CESTAT        ITAT        AAR

CESTAT RULINGS 2009

AIT-2009-461-CESTAT
DNH Spinners Vs. CC & CE, Vapi

the documents were not in the name of the assessee's factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds

AIT-2009-462-CESTAT
Force Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune

Cenvat credit with regard to service tax paid by them on the use of mobile phones and maintenance of motor vehicles as input service which is provided by the appellants to their employees / officers. -  the mobile phones are all standing in the name of the company and used by the employees in relation to the work only and incidentally can be used for personal work but that by itself is no ground to deny the credit - the appellants are entitled to avail credit as input on the said service availed to the extent of allotted limits

AIT-2009-463-CESTAT
Shardha Terry products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem

prior to the enactment of Section 66A, there was no authority vested by law on the respondents to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India but who receives services outside India.

AIT-2009-470-CESTAT
M/s Fascel Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad

it was the appellant who worked out the duty liability, the fact that Revenue did not do any investigation except issuance of show cause notice based upon the profit and loss account, the fact that amount involved can be considered  to be a drop in a bucket when the total amount of service tax paid by the appellant is taken into account, I think it is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 and set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant

AIT-2009-471-CESTAT
M/s Manigarh Cement Works Vs. CCE, Nagpur

as the respondent has not established nexus between any of the four services and the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods, the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of such service cannot be allowed

AIT-2009-472-CESTAT
Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur

If it is found that the main contractor paid service tax on the same service for the same period, there would be no tax liability for the assessee (sub-contractor).

AIT-2009-485-CESTAT
M/s Jindal Drugs Limited & Others Vs. CCE, Jammu

the education cess and higher education cess which was paid alongwith the excise duty in terms of exemption Notification No. 56/02 dated 14.11.2002 are not refundable alongwith the excise duty paid under the said exemption notification.

CESTAT Rulings   Page1


HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources

 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments