Seventh Amendment Rules. 2009. Payment to non-resident: CBDT inserts new Rule for furnishing information u/s 195(6);

G20 Summit in London: Are tax havens going to be low-hanging fruits on its agenda?

Deemed exports benefits: DGFT issues clarification;

Exports benefits under VKGUY - benefits only for 'Handmade Products' ;

Economic downturn: Painful adjustments are inevitable, says RBI Governor;

CII to release new Code for India Inc to reinforce good governance practices;

Political and Electoral Reforms - A must for better governance;

Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta gets three-month extension upto June, 2009;

TIOL COMMENTARY

tax story.pdf

G20 Summit in London: Are tax havens going to be low-hanging fruits on its agenda?

MIXED BUZZZ

mbuzz0334.pdf

Economic downturn: Painful adjustments are inevitable, says RBI Governor;

mbuzz0333.pdf

CII to release new Code for India Inc to reinforce good governance practices;

mbuzz0332.pdf

Political and Electoral Reforms - A must for better governance;

NOTIFICATION

it09not030.pdf

Seventh Amendment Rules. 2009. Payment to non-resident: CBDT inserts new Rule for furnishing information u/s 195(6);

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-189-ITAT-MAD.pdf

ITO, Pollachi Vs Smt P Vallammal (Dated : January 02, 2009)

Real estate business – forfeited amount is business income.

As per the sale agreement found during the course of survey the total sale price was Rs. 30,05,000 out of which assessee areceived sum of Rs. 30,00,000 as advance - Subsequently the purchaser did not pay the balance sum of Rs. 5,000 and the transaction did not materialize. Assessee showed the same as advance received in her books of accounts. After considering the circumstantial evidence, Tribunal concluded it as a transaction of transfer of money with mutual connivance and self-serving interest in the garb of the so-called agreement to sell. It was demonstrated before ITAT that the assessee was engaged in real estate business and the receipt is during the course of carrying on such business activities.

Appeal by Revenue allowed.:CHENNAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-188-ITAT-MAD.pdf

ACIT, Salem Vs Shri S P Sambandam (Dated : November 21, 2008)

Non-compete fee received – Business income u/s 28(ii)(a)

Assessee was Managing Director of a company. Sum of Rs. 1.35 crores received by him from that company for transfer of trade name, was treated as income from other sources by the AO as against the claim of capital gains. On appeal it was demonstrated that it was not a case of transfer of goodwill / trade name / patent. No such goodwill was credited to the accounts of the company. The name “Sambandam” said to be transferred is a very common name in South India and assessee has no special right or acquired any trademark or copy right in respect of this name as there was no such registration of the name with the Registrar of Trade mark and Copy rights. The name was not given as a name assigned to the goods or products of the company. This is only Business income in view of sec. 28(ii)(a).

Appeal by Revenue allowed.:CHENNAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-505-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Punjab State Federation Of Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: February 12, 2009)

ST - Management consultancy - assessee provides administrative support and planning strategy to sugar mills - State collects sugar cess and hands over the same to the assessee for providing its services - Revenue treats the same as fee paid for providing management consultancy service - it is a fit case for waiver from pre-deposit:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-504-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Lucknow Vs M/s Home Entertainment Network (Dated: February 10, 2009)

ST - Cable operator - assessee is a cable operator - pays no tax on collections made for pay channels - on being pointed out assessee pays the disputed tax - demand confirmed but no penalty imposed under Sec 78 - Commissioner(A) sets aside penalty under Sec 76 also - held, since no penalty was imposed under sec 68 and it is not a case that the assessee did nto pay tax at all - no infirmity in the Commissioner (A) order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-507-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s R K Bright Steels India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: January 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Clandestine Clearances – Stock taking – As per the confessional statement of the Director of the appellants admitted clearance of bright steel bars clandestinely. The records indicate utilization of raw materials to manufacture bright steel bars without accounting its disposal or paying duty. The departmental officers had ascertained raw material stock meticulously aggregating the weights of individual pieces, with reference to the dimensions of coils, available in the factory premises. In factories such as steel plants, engaged in the manufacture of massive quantities of heavy materials, actual physical weighment of the materials for stock taking is not practical nor is usually done. As a rule, the physical stock is ascertained based on the number of pieces, ascertained weight of representative piece of goods of a class etc - The SCN had recorded quantity of finished goods clandestinely removed under parallel invoices and delivery challans in the four financial years separately before quantifying the clandestinely removed bright bars. This quantity was determined on the basis of unaccounted raw material consumed - Demand upheld. ( Para 6)

Limitation – Extended period - The demands pertain to clandestine clearances, the Show Cause Notice issued within a period of five years of the impugned clearances cannot be held to barred by limitation. ( Para 6)

Penalty - When duty is demanded invoking the larger period under Section 11A, penalty equal to the duty demanded has to be imposed under Section 11AC of the Act from 28.8.96. ( Para 7) :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-506-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Loyal Textile Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Tirunelveli (Dated: January 16, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT – Capital goods removed as such – Limitation – Rule 3(4) of CCR provided for utilization of cenvat credit, inter alia, for payment of an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken on capital goods if such capital goods are removed as such. In the instant case no credit had been availed when the impugned capital goods had been received in the factory. No duty was hence payable on their removal as such from the factory to their sister unit. Credit was wrongly reversed. It was irregular use of credit. The same is recoverable under Rule 12 of CCR. However, as the appellant had informed the details of duty payment in its monthly returns, larger period could not have been validly invoked. Therefore the impugned demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed. ( Para 4):CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

DGFT CIRCULAR

dgft08cir075.pdf

Claiming of deemed export benefits under para 8.2(b) of FTP – Clarification regarding.;

DGFT NOTIFICATION

dgft08not099.pdf

Deemed exports benefits: DGFT issues clarification;

DGFT PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft08pn165.pdf

Exports benefits under VKGUY - benefits only for 'Handmade Products' ;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-46-SC-COFEPOSA.pdf + sc cus story.pdf

Pooja Batra Vs UoI (Dated: March 27, 2009)

COFEPOSA - While a single act of smuggling can also constitute the basis for issuing an order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act, highest standards of proof are required to exist .- High Court order quashed – detenu freed – In the absence of any specific and authenticated material to indicate that he had the propensity and potentiality to continue to indulge in such activities in future, the mere fact that on one occasion person smuggled goods into the country would not constitute a legitimate basis for detaining him under the COFEPOSA Act. This can be gathered from the past or future activities of the said person. In the case on hand, we have already pointed out that there were no such past activities as could lead to a reasonable conclusion that he possesses the propensity or the potentiality to indulge in smuggling activities in future, to prevent which it is necessary to detain him. At present there is nothing in the order of detention which would indicate that any of the said earlier imports was effective in contravention of any of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or that they could have been regarded as having been smuggled into the country within the meaning of Section 2(39) of the said Act. In such a case, the invocation of the COFEPOSA Act against such a person would not be justified. : SUPREME COURT ;