AIT-News-35

Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128 Sensex slips further and closes at 8773 100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59 Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122 Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32 Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127 CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877 Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117 SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108 exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58 Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57 Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19 HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC Government considering imposition of import duty on steel Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18 Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121 Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45 SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102 service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118 Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114 High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

No set off if business not carried out in assessment year

AIT News Network

CHENNAI. Special bench of ITAT AIT-2006-198-ITAT has ruled that if the business from which the depreciation claim arose is not carried out in any of the assessment years, the assessee would not be entitled to the set off.

The Special Bench was constituted for considering the following question :

“In view of the provisions of section 32(2)(iii) whether it is possible to set off the brought forward depreciation loss against capital gains?”

T H E R U L I N G:

The position prior to 1.4.1997 as contained in sections 32, 70, 71 72 of the Act have all been incorporated into section 32(2) of the Act itself with effect from 1.4.1997. The law maker thus having incorporated the provisions of sections 70, 71 and 72 of the Act in section 32 of the Act and has made this section a comprehensive in itself.
- The facts of the case as it exist are that the claim of depreciation for set off relates to assessment year 1997-98 and the business to which it was related to is still continuing. The assessment year involved is 1999-2000. it is thus clear that the present case of the assessee do not fall into section 32(2)(i) which permits setting off of unabsorbed depreciation against profits and gains of any business of the same assessment year. Sec. 32(2)(ii) is also not attracted in the case of the assessee because of the same reason, viz. the unabsorbed depreciation is not of the same assessment year as 1999-2000 but is of 19997-98. It is only in the event of the depreciation remaining wholly unabsorbed for the assessment year 1999-2000, that the assessee could insist for adjustment or set off of such unabsorbed portion of the depreciation against income from any other head including capital gains. This being not the fact of the present case, the claim of the assessee that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be adjusted against capital gains is incorrect because this provision is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
- The facts of the present case, as they are, attract the provisions of sec32(2)(iii) of the Act. This is because the unabsorbed depreciation is for the assessment year 1997-98 and the assessment year before us is 1999-2000. The unabsorbed depreciation being two years older to the present assessment year all that the assessee would be entitled to is carry forward of the said unabsorbed depreciation to be set off against the profits and gains of the business to which this depreciation is related to is still carried on and will be allowed to be carried forward for set off for the following six assessment years because already two assessment years have lapsed.
  - In the present case before us the assessment year 1999-2000, and the depreciation allowance is for the assessment year 1997-98 which the assessee is claiming for set off against the income for the present assessment year.
    - It is absolutely clear that it is only section 32(2)(iii) of the Act, that is operational in the case of the assessee. On that basis all that the assessee could claim is for carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation for six more successive assessment years to be adjusted against the income from profits and gains from the same business from which the depreciation claim arose and the assessee would be entitled to carry this act for the next six assessment year in which the assessee is claiming the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation.
      - The clear condition that is laid down in this section is that in the assessment year in which the assessee is claiming the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation, assessee must be carrying on that business and the income from that business must exist.
        ( Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-198-ITAT )