I.  Today's Headlines:

II.  Useful Contrubitions:

I.  [Contribution by CA Sanjeev Singhal and contributor is available at sanjeev.singhal@skaca.in] 

1.  Direct Taxes - Budget Highlights & Analysis 2013

(Click here for detail)

2.  Service Tax - Budget Highlights & Analysis, 2013

II.  [Contribution by CA Raman Khatuwala and contributor is available at raman@khatuwala.net] 

1.  A judgement on – Central Excise Valuation ( Determination of Price of Excisable Goods )  Rules 2000.

Rule 10A  of Valuation Rules …. Appellants purchased raw materials for manufacture of moulded furniture from approved suppliers of the customers …..  Prima facie appellant is not covered by definition of 'job worker'……. Stay granted: CESTAT.

(Click here for detail)

III.  Useful Caselaws:

1.   Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Appeal No. ST/261 OF 2011, Dated: 21-01-2013, CESTAT - Ahmedabad

Letter issued by Superintendent is not an appealable order

Letter issued by the Superintendent is not an appealable order issued by a competent authority. It is also recorded that since a show cause notice on the same issue has already been issued to the appellant herein, the outcome of such adjudication proceedings is an appealable order before higher judicial fora. Accordingly, I find that the first appellate authority was correct in rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Vinay Mishra Vs. ACIT, IT Appeal No. 895 (Bang.) of 2012, Dated: 12-10-2012, ITAT - Bangalore

Section 54F Exemption can be claimed for residential house purchased outside India

We do not find anything therein to suggest that the new residential house acquired should be situated in India. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (supra) has held that introducing a word which is not there into a section amounts to legislating when Parliament has not used these words in the said section.

In view of this decision, we are precluded from reading the words “in India” into section 54F of the Act, when Parliament in its legislative wisdom has deliberately not used the word “in India” in section 54F of the Act. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, we follow the latter decisions of the Mumbai Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the cases of Mrs. Prema P. Shah and Sanjiv P. Shah (supra) and Dr. Girish M Shah (supra). The provisions of section 54 of the Act which was considered by the Mumbai Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the cases of Mrs. Prema P. Shah and Sanjiv P. Shah (supra) and Dr. Girish M. Shah (supra) are in pari material with section 54F of the Act and therefore these two decisions of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal are equally applicable while considering the exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act and hence would be applicable to the present case of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we allow the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act since all conditions laid down in this section are satisfied for availing of the said exemption.

(Please click here for judgment)

 Golden Rules:

"Individually, we are one drop.
But, together, we are an ocean" 

  Thanks & Regards

Team

Voice of CA