Advani says EC exceeded limits in asking BJP not to field Varun Gandhi;

India successfully test-fires surface-to-surface BrahMos missile from Pokharan;

PM for interest rate reduction; Industry for retail finance for auto sector;

DGFT begins consultation with exporters for new Foreign Trade Policy post-elections;

PMK jumps out of UPA ship; Two Central Ministers, including Health Minister Ramdoss, resign from Cabinet;

TIOL COMMENTARY

2009-TIOL-47-SC-CT.pdf + sc ct story.pdf

Ravi Gupta Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: March 27, 2009)

Grant of stay pending disposal of case - though discretion is available, the same has to be exercised judicially: It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a license to the forum/authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. Where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizens' faith in the impartiality of public administration, interim relief can be given: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA;

special down.pdf

CHA Licensing Regulation: AB TAK 100!

MIXED BUZZZ

mbuzz0337.pdf

Total tax survey provides insights to Policy makers to improve India's tax competitiveness;

mbuzz0336.pdf

Cooperation through Interpol leads to 'Pink Panther' suspect arrest in Cyprus;

mbuzz0335.pdf

Stimulus packages now sinking in, says PM;

NOTIFICATION

it09not031.pdf

Income-tax (8th Amendment) Rules, 2009: CBDT substitutes TDS / TCS Form Nos 16, 16A and 16AA;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-191-ITAT-MUM.pdf + gic story.pdf

M/s General Insurance Corporation Of India, Mumbai Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated : February 13, 2009)

Income Tax - Commission paid or allowed as a deduction from gross rate to the insurance companies does not fall within the category of remuneration or reward for soliciting or procuring insurance business – No TDS – the insurance companies have not provided any service of soliciting or procuring of insurance business for the assessee company. On the other hand, the assessee company has provided reinsurance to the insurance companies. The insurance companies do not get business from the insured for the assessee. The said insurance companies have got business for themselves and not for the assessee company. The insurance companies get business either directly or through agents. If any commission is paid to the agents by them, that attracts provisions of section 194D as the same is paid for services rendered for soliciting or procuring insurance business. If the insurance companies, reduce the premium directly from the premium payable by the incurred on account of no claim bonus etc. such a deduction will not attract the provisions of section 194D . On the facts of the present case, section 194D is not attracted. The order under section 201(1) and 201( 1A ) is accordingly set aside: MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-190-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd Vs ADIT , New Delhi (Dated : February 06, 2009)

Income Tax - Sec 36(1)(via) read with sec 2(24)(x) - On the direction of the inspecting officers of PF department assessee deposits short payment - AO disallows this payment on the ground that payment pertains to earlier assessment year - CIT(A) confirms AO order - Held, in the view of the decision of the Tribunal in asssessee's own case of earlier assessment year disallowance deleted.

On the issue of disallowance out of vehicle maintenance expenses for deemed personal use of the directors - Held, in the view of the decision of the Tribunal in asssessee's own case of earlier assessment year disallowance deleted - Assessee Appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-508-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Hindustan Institute Of Aeronautics Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated: February 16, 2009)

ST - Commercial Training and Coaching - Assessee provides training in aircraft maintenance - pleads it is a charitable educational body - held, in view of the Board's clarification that charitable purpose does not drive an assessee out of the tax net - not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit - A pre-deposit of Rs 4 lakh ordered: DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-509-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Ponneri Steel Industries (Dated: January 7, 2009)

Central Excise – Clandestine clearance – Part duty paid before issuance of show cause notice - Penalty – Part of the duty paid before issuance of show cause notice. Penalty equal to duty evaded payable under Section 11AC. In order to qualify for the benefit of paying 25% duty due as penalty in terms of the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act the respondent should have paid the duty due and the interest payable thereon under Section 11AB within 30 days of the communication of the order of the Central Excise officer determining such duty. In the instant case, the respondents paid part of the duty determined in the order of the original authority and the applicable interest after the impugned order was passed. The respondents did not qualify for the benefit under the proviso to Section 11AC of the Act . (Para 4): CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-510-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

S Namasivayam Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: January 23, 2009)

Customs – Import – Transaction Value – Mis-declaration – Principles of Natural Justice – Cross-examination - The entire case is built mainly on the basis of data contained in the hard disc of the computer recovered from the premises of the appellants. Once the integrity of the data retrieved by the GEQD and relied upon by the investigating agency to frame allegations against the appellants is questioned it was not fair on the part of the adjudicating authority to pass the adjudication order without considering the request made by the appellants to examine the GEQD. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after considering the request for cross-examination of the GEQD. (Para 3): CHENNAI CESTAT;