Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Income Tax

Income tax - Sec 10(23C)(vi) - CBDT directs non-resident charitable body to spend 75% of income on education in India - Assessee questions such a condition - No infirmity in Board's direction: Bombay HC

PETITIONER, a non-profit organization established in the USA, applied for approval under section 10(23C)(VI) - the same was denied by the appropriate authority - petitioner filed writ before the Delhi High Court but the same was dismissed - Petitioner moved to Supreme Court - the Apex Court while setting aside the matter to the file of CBDT observed that the threshold condition required for the approval under section 10(23C)(VI) were fulfilled by the applicant and hence by applying monitoring conditions, approval may be granted to the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, the CBDT granted approval to the petitioner imposing a condition that petitioner should apply 75% of its income in the educational field in India. Aggrieved with the order of the Board, Petitioner filed writ before the High Court challenging the verdict of Board.

Customs

Central Government empowered to reduce anti-dumping duties based on recommendations of Designated Authority after sunset review under Section 9A(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – CESTAT Special Bench on Anti-Dumping

THE issue before the CESTAT Special Bench for Anti-dumping cases was:

(i) W hether proviso to Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 empowers the Central Government only to 'extend the period' of the duties already in place or whether it can also vary the duties levied under this sub-section earlier; and

(ii) Whether individual dumping margin can be determined for an exporter who has no exports and hence no export price to India.

Service Tax

New clause w.e.f 10.09.2004 defining ‘Business Auxiliary Service' is couched in entirely different language within which appellant squarely fell and hence started paying service tax – Prior to amendment, Revenue has no case - Applicant as prima facie case - Pre-deposit waived and Stay granted: CESTAT

UNDER a contract entered into with the Income Tax department, UTI Technology Services Ltd., a Central PSU, undertook the process of allotment of PAN to Income Tax assessees. All expenditure incurred by the appellant for these purposes would be recovered and received from the PAN applicants in the form of Rs.60 per application. The department eyed this Sixty rupees being collected per PAN applicant and issued a Service Tax demand of Rs.3.67 crores for the period July 2003 to September, 2004 on 29.09.2005 invoking the extended period of limitation.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements