Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE (SC) – The language of Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is clear that for availing concession from excise duty on excisable goods used in a specified industrial process, a person must obtain a registration certificate from the Collector and that “the concession shall, unless renewed by the Collector, cease on the expiry of the registration certificate”. Admittedly, the registration certificate of the appellant expired on 31.12.1995. Hence, the exemption granted under the notification ceased on 31.12.1995. The fresh registration certificate in favour of the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. was issued on 26.06.1996 and we find on a reading of the copy of the CT-2 certificate annexed as Annexure P5 that the registration certificate was not for any period prior to 26.06.1996. As the procedure laid down in Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Rules has not been complied with, the appellant is not entitled to avail the exemption of excise duty under the exemption notification during the period from 01.01.1996 to 25.06.1996.
Flex Engineering Limited Vs CCE (SC) – , If a product is not saleable, it will not be marketable and consequently the process of manufacture would not be held to be complete and duty of excise would not be leviable on it. The corollary to the above is that till the time the step of manufacture continues, all the goods used in relation to it will be considered as inputs and thus, entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. In the present case, as aforesaid, each machine is tailor made according to the requirements of individual customers. If the results are not in conformity with the order, then the machine loses its marketability and is of no use to any other customer. Thus, the process of manufacture will not be said to be complete till the time the machines meet the contractual specifications and that will not be possible unless the machines are subjected to individual testing.
CCE Vs M/S Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (SC) -Process of mixing polymers and additives with bitumen does not amount to manufacture. Both the lower authorities have found as a fact that the said process merely resulted in the improvement of quality of bitumen. Bitumen remained bitumen. There was no change in the characteristics or identity of bitumen and only its grade or quality was improved. The said process did not result in transformation of bitumen into a new product having a different identity, characteristic and use. The end use also remained the same, namely for mixing of aggregates for constructing the roads.
After IAS and IPS officers, the government has now turned its heat on Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) officers asking them to mandatorily furnish their immovable property returns by this month-end failing which they would be denied promotions. Citing a Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) order in this regard, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has said those officers who fail to submit their IPRs within the prescribed time “would be denied vigilance clearance and will not be considered for promotion and empanelment for senior level posts and deputation, among others (service benefits).
The top economic official of the European Union has criticised a decision by Standard and Poor’s to downgrade the credit ratings of nine euro zone countries. Economic Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn said the move was inconsistent as the euro zone was taking decisive action to end the debt crisis. Other senior European officials have also hit out at the move.
ACIT Vs. Symantec Software India P. Ltd. (ITAT Pune)- Based on the specific facts of the case, the Tribunal has reiterated that the fulfillment of the conditions of section 10A(2) is of utmost importance for claiming a deduction under section 10A. A reference to the new undertaking as expansion by the STPI would not dis-entitle the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 10A of the Act.
ADIT (IT) Vs. Warner Brother Pictures Inc (ITAT Mumbai)- even if income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to permanent establishment. In this case, the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India. Since the Indian company who obtained the rights is acting independently, Agency PE provisions are not applicable to the assessee company.
DCIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Camelot was a 100% subsidiary of the appellant and the appellant had deep business interest in Camelot. The main reason for setting up Camelot was to manufacture toothbrushes exclusively for the appellant. The appellant was relying upon Camelot for manufacturing of toothbrushes to be traded by the appellant. The entire investment in Camelot was made by the appellant only as a measure of commercial expediency to further its business objectives and were primarily related to the business operations of the appellant. At no point of time, the investments in Camelot was made or held with an intention to realize any enhancement in value thereof over a period of time or to earn dividend income. Rather the investments were made only to separately house an integral part of the business activity of the appellant, which essentially operated as a single unified business.
ACIT Vs. SKF Bearings India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – Sections 54EC and 74 refer to capital gain arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset and not with respect to a short term capital asset. Further, section 112(1 )(b)(i) and (ii) specifically refers to only long term capital gains. Hence, where section 50 by a legal fiction, deems the income earned from a depreciable asset as short term capital gain, applying the tax rate specified for long term capital gains in section 112(1) would not arise. On a plain reading of section 50, the excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of a short term capital asset. The beneficial rate of tax @ 20% would not be applicable to capital gains arising on transfer of depreciable asset even though the asset was held for more than thirty-six months
What is the date of applicability of the New Schedule VI? The New Schedule VI is applicable to all companies for financial statements prepared for financial year commencing on or after 01.04.2011 except banking, insurance and electricity companies which are governed by their own reporting formats under the respective pronouncements.
