Customs' role in combating environmental offences (See"Common Basket")

SEBI moves SC for permission to interrogate Raju;

Sahar Airport Customs arrests pax coming from Singapore with dutiable goods worth above Rs 9 lakh;

Govt working on one more stimulus package for exports and labour-intensive units;

Mess at IGI Airport after a few pax give 'hijack threat' to Indigo Airlines crew; NSG steps in; Air services in disarray for hours;

ddt 2 Feb.pdf

Stimulus to Real Estate Sector – No Service Tax on Sale of Flats - Board Clarifies;

tiol top guest.pdf

Customs' role in combating environmental offences;

guest column.pdf

Service tax on commercial training or coaching: CBEC clarification distorts English language and defies logic;

post_ALA_ED.pdf

ED looking for Asst Legal Adviser;

mbuzz0109.pdf

Exports growth continues to be on slide;

mbuzz0108.pdf

Oil PSUs agree to spend 2 % of profits on social responsibilities;

2009-TIOL-74-ITAT-MUM-TM.pdf + TM story.pdf

M/s Nicholas Applegate South East Asia Fund Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 09, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 292B - assessee is Mauritius-based company - has four cells or sub-divisions dealing in share transactions in India - each cell files return within time frame of Sec 139(1) - After some time mistake detected and a single return consolidating the figures disclosed in the four returns filed - While passing the assessment order based on the revised return, the AO declares the first four return invalid and disallows carry forward of losses as the return was not filed within the time prescribed - Difference of opinion between two Members of the Tribunal - issue referred to the Third Member - held, a procedural or a technical mistake in nature cannot prevail over the substance and effect of a return filed with the intent and purpose of the Act. If it happens it will defeat the very purpose of Sec 292B which intends to prevent injustice from being done on the ground of technical errors or omissions while complying with the 'purpose' of the Act. The mistake of filing four returns is curable under Sec 292B and the revised return filed later is to be dated back to the original return date and the benefit of carry forward of losses cannot be denied - Assessee's appeal allowed :MUMBAI ITAT (THIRD MEMBER);

2009-TIOL-73-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Suvidha Cold Storage Vs ITO,Mumbai (Dated: October 29, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee is in the business of selling processed milk. On the basis of survey certain additions made in the previous year and the Tribunal allowed some relief to assessee - In the year under appeal, the AO made certain additions on the same pattern as for the previous year. The CIT(A) allowed partial relief - On the issue of addition on account of packing and processing charges it was held that the finding of fact recorded by the Revenue authorities that the assessee has debited excessive packing and processing expenses has been affirmed by the Tribunal in the A.Y 2001-02, no substantial change in the facts this year except that some charges are shown to have been recovered from the sister concern. The addition on account of processing and packing charges from the sister concern is justified:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-72-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Wipro Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: October 31, 2008)

Income Tax - Appellant has discontinued a part of its business and while discontinuing the said business, incurred costs in respect of certain obligations and received a consideration for transitioning the customers in the business - AO disallowed the expenditure w.r.t such business - Held, discontinuance of one or more products cannot lead to conclusion that the business itself has been discontinued and even if a business is discontinued during a year loss cannot be disallowed

As regards expenditure of software imports, held that if software is used as part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee, then expenditure on software is capital but if it is used to facilitate the running of the business, then it is revenue in nature—W.r.t. allocation of corporate expenses, held that there is a difference between income not includable in total income and income deductible after inclusion and the income from the undertaking engaged in the business of export of computer software is chargeable to Income-tax Act but no tax is payable in view of section 10A—Held further that since section 14A is applicable for disallowing the expenses in respect of income, which is not includible in total income, therefore, section 14A cannot be invoked when income is deductible u/s 10A—Held that when direct expenses of rates and taxes were known in respect of unit whose income is deductible u/s 10A then otherwise allocation cannot be made - Direct expenditure disallowed by the Assessing Officer is confirmed - Assessee's appeal allowed.: BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-71-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, Dehradun Vs M/s Tidewater Marine International Inc (Dated: January 02, 2009)

Income tax - Interest u/s 234B and 234C - assessee is a non-resident - since the entire payment made to the assessee is subject to tax deduction at source it did not pay any advance tax - Revenue insists on interest as held by the Apex Court in the case of Anjum Ghaswala that interest is mandatory in nature - CIT(A) deletes the addition - held, since the entire sum paid to the assessee is subject to withholding tax, and the fact that it is settled law that the advance tax payable is to be reduced by the tax deductible at source, in this case the advance tax payable is NIL and therefore, no interest u/s 234B and 234C is chargeable - Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-70-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Mitsui & Co Ltd Vs ACIT,Delhi (Dated: December 24, 2008)

Income Tax - assessee is a non-resident company - sets up Liaison Office in India - Revenue treats the LO as PE of the assessee and attributes certain business profits to it - CIT(A) attributes 50% of the income to the PE - held, in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of the assessee itself for pass AYs, there is no case for Revenue - assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

NOTIFICATION

stnot09_006.pdf

Service Tax: CBEC delegates powers under Sec 83A to Chief Commissioner for adjudication of cases;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-192-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Andhra Pradesh story.pdf

M/s Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: September 10, 2008)

Service Tax – State transport undertaking engaged in conduct of tours for sightseeing and religious purpose – Prima facie engaged in the activity of tour operator service – Pre-deposit of Rs 50 lakhs ordered: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-191-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Subros Limited Vs CC & CCE, Noida (Dated: January 5, 2009)

ST - Service recipient - assessee receives services from non-resident company having no office in India - pays tax under IPR Services category - Revenue raises demand under 'Management Consultant' category - Demand also raised against MD and Director who were paid for upgradation and development of system - Since the issue is prima facie covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Hindustanc Zinc Ltd, pre-deposit of tax and penalties are waived :DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-190-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Jagson Publicity Vs CST, Delhi- I (Dated: December 17, 2008)

ST - Advertising service - assessee paints messages on boards on rental basis for DAVP - messages are readymade art work provided by DAVP - Original Authority holds DAVP is not commercial concern and therefore no tax leviable - Commissioner issues notice for review - held, no order under section 84 can be passed ‘after the expiry of two years from the date on which the order sought to be revised has been passed'. Secondly, the Commissioner ignored the submission that the demand for advertising service is not sustainable and the same is not proper - assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-196-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + Tamil Nadu story.pdf

M/s Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: December 15, 2008)

Central Excise – interest under Section 11 AB – no interest under Section 11 AB is payable for the duty paid under Section 11 A(2B) for the clearances made prior to 11.5.2001.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-195-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Madras Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: December 10, 2008)

Central Excise – Exemption Notification – RSP - Cement – Cement cleared in 50 kg bags to other institutional/industrial consumers are eligible for benefit of notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 under Sl.No. 1B or 1C of said Notification by virtue of the Second Proviso to the Explanation to Sl.No. 1C. Appeal allowed. ( Para 3):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-194-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Futura Fibres (Dated: December 12, 2008)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – credit on F.O. used in generation of steam supplied to the adjacent unit – credit is not admissible - Inputs consumed to generate steam used in the factory of appellant did not fulfil the mandatory condition that the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products of the assessee – since the issue is a question of interpretation, penalty is not called for.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08pn140.pdf

DGFT amends jurisdiction of own officers in Maharashtra and MP;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-193-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Goyal Impex & Industries Limited Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: November 25, 2008)

Customs – Refund- Refund without challenging the assessment order is not valid as held by apex court in Priya Blue Industries Ltd.:CHENNAI CESTAT;