Statutes -Monday-June-2009-06-22

India (SANEPR.com) June 23, 2009 -- DIRECT TAX LAWS

• 
  Section 138(1)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Disclosure of information respecting assessees to specified officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law - Notified authority - Notification No. 48/2009 [F. No. 225/20/2009-IT (A-II)">/S.O. 1492(E), dated 16-6-2009

• Exim Bank’s Line of Credit of USD 166.23 million to the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia - A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 69, dated 18-6-2009

• Increase in CRAR - Extension of time - Circular No. DNBS.PD/CC.No. 140/03.02.002/2008-09, dated 26-5-2009

• Section 15L of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Composition of Securities Appellate Tribunal - Notification No. G.S.R. 410(E), dated 12-6-2009

• Shifting of Offices in Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi - Trade Notice No. 2/ST/2009, dated 11-2-2009

• Rectification of name of company under section 22 of Companies Act, 1956 - The Government can issue a direction to the subsequently registered company within 12 months of its first registration or registration by a new name; once that period lapses the Government loses its authority to issue such a direction; the period of 12 months is, therefore, essence of invocation of powers in terms of section 22 vested in the appropriate Government - MRC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Director, Western Region Ministry of Corporate Affairs [Writ Petition No. 462 of 2009">

• AAR on accruement of income in a case of transaction of sale of goods by a non-resident (applicant) to an Indian resident as a part of composite contract involving various operations within and outside India - The Authority wanted certain facts to be brought on record especially with regard to the activities undertaken by the applicant, apart from the import of goods; but, no written representation or clarification on fact has been furnished; consequently, the Authority is left with no option but to decline to answer the questions raised by the applicant - Yongnam Engineering & Construction (Pte.) Ltd., In re [AAR No. 783 of 2008">

• Validity of levy of penalty under section 271F of IT Act, 1961 - Where the assessee had not been able to show, much less, prove, any reasonable cause(s) for not furnishing the return of income within the prescribed time i.e., by the end of the relevant assessment year, the levy of penalty for such default was not saved by section 273B; as such, the said default could only be considered as a conscious disregard of one’s statutory obligations - Sanjay Agarwal @ Sanjay S. Agarwal v. ACIT [ITA NO. 440/Agr./2005">

• Allowability of expenditure incurred by a French company in India during period of lull in its business in India - Merely for the reason that the non-resident assessee sent some letters and made some offer from Dubai to ONGC does not amount to doing business in India; though ‘lull in business’ does not mean that the assessee has ceased its business; but, when the assessee has neither permanent office, nor any other office in India, nor any contract was in execution during the relevant period, it cannot be said that the assessee was in business in India and as such, expenditure shown by it in India are not liable to be allowed, or set off - CIT v. Foramer France [ITA NO. 49 OF 2005">

• Scope of C & F Agent service rendered by marketing agents - The activity of marketing agents was brought under the tax net with effect from 1-7-03 when BAS was introduced; same services could not be classifiable under C&F Agent Service for any previous period as the scope of C&F Agent service was not modified when BAS was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 - CCE v Tamilnadu Petroproducts Ltd. [Appeal No. S/15/03/MAS & S/Co/01/05/MAS">


• Leviability of service tax on activity of operation and maintenance of a power plant by a company (appellant) - Once the appellant undertakes to operate and maintain the power plant under a contract, one cannot say that the appellant is rendering a service to the owner of the power plant; in fact, if at all any service is rendered, the same will be only to the appellant itself; in that case, no service tax is attracted - GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd. v. CCE&C [ST/Stay/437/2008 in ST/706/2008">

• Supreme Court on High Court’s power to condone delay in presentation of reference application under unamended section 35H(1) of CE Act, 1944 - The High Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the “reference application” filed by the Commissioner under unamended section 35H(1) beyond the prescribed period of 180 days - Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P.) Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 1939 to 1941 of 2009">