Service Tax on Commission paid to non-executive Directors? (See 'DDT')

Service Tax – Access to Registered Premises – Only Superintendents and above authorised - CBEC Clarifies (See 'DDT')

Cabinet okays India-Albania DTAA; to ease DCRF guidelines for relief to States;

Cabinet gives nod to pact with UNEP; Training Centre to be developed under NACEN;

CCEA approves hike in MSP for rabi crops; FDI for Krishnapatnam and Rs 387 Cr fund for Lady Hardinge Medical College;

IIT Council for hiking retirement age of Director to 70; decides to fill up 100% reserved seats in new IITs

3G Spectrum issue goes to GoM;

CBI arrests branch manager of Bank of Baroda, Janakpuri, for accepting bribe + searches premises of AIR Station Director in Ahmedabad for criminal conspiracy;

Pranab Mukherjee interacts with MoF top honchos; says his priority is to get vote on account smoothly passed in coming session of Parliament;

Govt cuts petrol price by Rs 5/- per litre; diesel by Rs 2/- per litre and LPG by Rs 25 per cylinder from midnight of Jan 28;

Lok Sabha polls: EC indicates Apr 8 to May 15 time-frame;

ddt 29 jan.pdf

Bond and Bank Guarantee (BG) under Advance Authorization and EPCG – Interest not to be included - CBEC Clarifies;

tcw120.pdf

Is Indian Customs 'armed' enough to protect our bio-wealth?

rbi08cir049.pdf

Exim Bank's Line of Credit of USD 29.50 million to the Government of the Central African Republic;

mbuzz0097.pdf

Cabinet okays India-Albania DTAA; to ease DCRF guidelines for relief to States;

mbuzz0096.pdf

Cabinet gives nod to pact with UNEP; Training Centre to be developed under NACEN;

mbuzz0095.pdf

CCEA approves hike in MSP for rabi crops; FDI for Krishnapatnam and Rs 387 Cr fund for Lady Hardinge Medical College;

mbuzz0094.pdf

Otters not on verge of extinction in India; Steps taken to protect cheeru;

mbuzz0093.pdf

IIT Council for hiking retirement age of Director to 70; decides to fill up 100% reserved seats in new IITs;

2009-TIOL-01-ARA-IT.pdf + ara story.pdf

Shri Ramit Kumar Sharma (Dated: January 27, 2009)

Advance Ruling – Income Tax - Income Tax – mechanical process to raw castings would bring into existence commercially new goods called ‘machined castings and there comes into being a commercially different product with distinctive name, character & use called ‘Machined casting – eligible for deduction under Section 80IC(2): the applicant's is a proposed undertaking i.e. business establishment which will be processing or refining the raw castings provided by the Principal.  It further emerges that the mechanical process to be applied to raw castings would bring into existence commercially new goods called ‘machined castings' which fits compatibly into a tractor.  The raw castings pass through the inspection drill, tooling and milling processes on machines and in its wake flat surfaces, contour surfaces are chiselled and refined. Pursuant thereto, the original article i.e. raw casting, as the photographs furnished indicate, would undergo a substantial change and there comes into being a commercially different product with distinctive name, character & use called ‘Machined casting'. The operations in question in respect of raw castings cannot be described as mere ‘feather touches' as it is subjected to a detailed ‘machine processing'. After the completion of the machining operations, the end product, as stated, cannot be used as raw casting again. On the basis of the facts presented, the conclusion that inevitably follows is that the applicant's enterprise can be said to have undertaken business activities which amount to manufacture or production of an article different from the raw casting and therefore merits requisite deduction under section 80-IC(2) of the Act.:ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY;

2009-TIOL-06-SC-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd (Dated: January 21, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 10(5) - LTC / Conveyance Allowance - assessee-company gives LTC benefits to its employees - avails Sec 10(5) benefits - Revenue insists on collecting evidence towards actual utilisation of LTC facility - held, Sec 192 does not cast any obligation on the employer to collect and examine supporting evidence to establish declaration given by individual employees for having availed the facility - Revenue's appeal dismissed:SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-53-HC-MAD-IT.pdf + hc swami story.pdf

Swami Premananda Vs CIT (Dated: December 16, 2008)

Swamiji in jail – His income cannot be treated as income of TRUST - amounts which have ‘come in' are income – the amounts received by the writ petitioner constituted income since it was profits and gains arising out of his vocation, profession or business. It is for the assessee to show that these receipts received by him are exempt from tax.

Judicial Indiscipline - examining all the donors is as practical as examining all the Puri Temple Pilgrims - There are exceptional situations where compliance with the superior officer's order is almost impossible – In the present case, the CIT( Appeals) had very caustically remarked that the affidavits have been cursorily examined and had therefore, directed in his remand orders that these affidavits should be examined properly. On facts, examination of the donors who allegedly have sent in money from many countries e.g. Switzerland, Italy, U.K., Holland, Belgium, and France, etc, would have been as practical as examining all the Puri Temple Pilgrims, who were donors. The spirit of the remand order was to give a fair opportunity to the assessee and to really 'consider' the affidavits and not merely cursorily examine them. There are exceptional situations where compliance with the superior officer's order is almost impossible. This is one such.

Burden of proving the source or the category under which the receipts should be classified is on the assessee – "A mere identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim of gift is made by the assessed, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make such a gift" From this, it is clear that the burden of proving the source or the category under which the receipts should be classified is on the assessee, and any receipt will be treated as income unless the assessee shows that it comes under an exemption.

High Court's interference:

In Union of India and others Vs. Shatabadi Trading and Investment P. Ltd. and others the Supreme Court held that the supervisory power of the High court would not get enlarged; nor can the High Court exercise an appellate power while examining the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Authority. There is no quarrel with this position. But the High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always there to check illegality, arbitrariness, perversity etc. The High Court said “But we will not lightly or easily disturb concurrent factual findings.”:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-52-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

CIT, Mumbai Vs Shri Omprakash K Jain Surat And Ors (Dated: January 12, 2009)

Income tax - Search - assessee alleges that his statements were recorded under coercion - files retraction - Revenue makes additions - Tribunal deletes the additions on the ground that the assessee produced necessary documents but the AO ignored the same - held, documentary evidence must prevail over oral evidence. Merely because the assessee retracts his statements, the case is not lost for the Revenue as there is more documentary evidence on record to support the assessee's statement - Matter remanded for fresh examination:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-67-ITAT-DEL.pdf

S Harishanker Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated : April 4, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee, promoter-employee of transferor company, received certain amount from transferee company for not engaging in any activity which will be in competition with the transferee company and paid advance tax on the said amount - AO held it as profit in lieu of salary, taxable u/s 17(3)(i) and initiated proceeding u/s 147 for re-assessment - CIT(A) held the reopening of assessment as valid - Held, payment was made when assessee was in the employment of transferee company and, thus, taxable as salary u/s. 17(3)(i) and the failure to issue notice u/s 143(2) earlier will not disentitle the AO from initiating re-assessment u/s 147, where material exists on record and there is a link between the material and escapement on income to form the belief

Held, the payment was revenue in nature - Assessee's appeal partly allowed.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-66-ITAT-BANG.pdf

ISRO Satellite Centre Vs ITO, Bangalore (Dated : November 14, 2008)

Income tax - assessee makes payment to non-resident entity for launch of satellite into geostationary orbit - AO treats the same as fee for technical services liable to TDS u/s 195 - Held, issue is already settled in favour of the assessee - Appeal allowed:BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

file_137.pdf

Service Tax – access to registered premises – empowerment of officers;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-173-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Rajkot Vs Shri BSGK Shashtry (Dated: December 26, 2008)

ST - Penalaty u/s 76 - Commissioner (A) reduces penalty - Revenue argues no power to reduce penalty - held, it is well settled law now that penalty under Sec 76 can be reduced and such discretion is available under Sec 80 - Revenue's appeal dismissed:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-172-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated: December 22, 2008)

ST - Cenvat credit - assessee avails credit of service tax paid on GTA service for payment of service tax on inward consignment - Since the tax is already deposited and the issue is pending with the Larger Bench, stay granted:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-171-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Chandigarh Vs M/s Arisht Spg Mills (Dated: December 4, 2008)

ST - Cenvat credit - assessee avail credit of tax paid on invward transporation for payment of service tax on subsequent inward consignments - Since matter is pending with the Larger Bench, Revenue's appeal for stay of the Commissioner(A) order in favour of the assessee cannot be stayed :DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-177-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + trim story.pdf

CCE, Raigad Vs M/s Trimbak Industries Ltd (Dated: November 20, 2008)

For any period prior to 15.9.98, the benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/95-CE was admissible to Furnace Oil procured indigenously by an 100% EOU and used for generation of steam in boilers, in terms of Sr.No.7 "consumables" – Holding so, Tribunal dismisses Revenue appeal.

Tribunal decisions in Jayant Agro Organics Ltd vs CC & CE, Vadodara - 2003-TIOL-79-CESTAT-MUM ; Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cus. & CEx.Surat.II – 2007-TIOL-1075-CESTAT-AHM relied upon.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-176-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Noida Vs M/s D S Foods Ltd (Dated: November 3, 2008)

Central Excise – When a product is covered under Chapter 20, no necessity to go Chapter 21 which is residuary nature – Mouth freshener is product of fruits, nuts, herbs, lime, saffron, sugar, mishri, cardamom seeds etc classifiable under Chapter 20.01 – No infirmity in Appellate Commissioners order – Revenue appeal dismissed:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-175-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Pricol Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: November 26, 2008)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – Credit of duty paid on facility charges for supply of liquid nitrogen gas – the buyer is entitled for Credit of the entire amount of duty paid by it towards supplies of liquid nitrogen gas including duty on the facility charges paid.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08pn139.pdf

SION rate for 100% flax / linen yarn amended;

dgft08pn138.pdf

Procedure for EoU to seek DC's approval to continue under scheme or opt out of it;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-51-HC-P&H-CUS.pdf + steel story.pdf

M/s Garga Steel Industries Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: September 3, 2008)

Customs – Delayed Refund – Revenue asked to pay 10% interest - Accordingly, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd , the High Court accepted the prayer of the appellant to the extent that simple interest be awarded @ 10% per annum from the date of order i.e. 6.2.1996 to the actual date of refund i.e. 23.11.1998.:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-174-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CC, Jaipur Vs M/s Amit Marbles Pvt Ltd (Dated: October 1, 2008)

Customs – Import of rough marble slabs – Test reports of Mines & Geology Department do not indicate that goods are classifiable under 2515.20 as claimed by Department – No infirmity in Appellate Commissioners order confirming classification under 2515.11 :DELHI CESTAT;