New Limited Liability Partnership Rules lay down exclusionary clauses (See 'DDT')

RTGS Transactions: RBI content with rapid growth (See 'DDT')

Inflation again down to 0.26%;

NELP VIII: India offers 70 blocks for oil and gas exploration;

Somalian pirates capture US cargo ship with 21 sailors;

India to launch spy satellite on April 20 to keep an eye to curb infiltration and on terrorists;

'Clock ticking' for Lankan civilians, warns UN Humanitarian chief;

Charge reshuffle among CBEC Members: V Sridhar gets P&V along with Budget + Vijay Singh is new Member (Excise) + C G Lal gets L & J + Rakesh Sharma gets Service Tax & Computerisation + No change in J K Batra's charge;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 9 April.pdf + rtgs_transaction.pdf

Limited Liability Partnership – Govt Notifies Rules;

cobweb.pdf

Our exports further contracts in March but revival is not too distant!

MIXED BUZZZ

mbuzz0372.pdf

April-Feb Industrial growth rate now stands at 2.8 per cent ;

mbuzz0371.pdf

NELP VIII: India offers 70 blocks for oil and gas exploration;

mbuzz0370.pdf

'Clock ticking' for Lankan civilians, warns UN Humanitarian chief;

2009-TIOL-218-ITAT-PUNE-SB.pdf + Special Bench Story.pdf

Brahma Associates Vs JCIT, Pune (Dated : April 6, 2009 )

Income tax – Housing Project comprising of residential units and commercial establishments- deduction under section 80IB(10) admissible; The deduction under section 80 IB (10), as applicable prior to 1st April 2005, is admissible in case of a ‘housing project' comprising residential housing units and commercial establishments. In case these projects are approved as housing projects by the local authority, such an approval as housing project is sufficient for the purposes of eligibility. In any other case, where 90% or more of the total built up area is used for dwelling units, in accordance with the scheme of section 80 IB(10), the benefit of deduction under section 80 IB(10) will not be declined. In case commercial use of built up area is more than 10% but the residential segment of the project satisfies requirements of Section 80 IB(10) on standalone basis, i.e. (i) the size of the plot, excluding portion under commercial unit, is more than minimum area of one acre , (ii) residential units built on such area must satisfy condition of clause (c) of the provision, and (iii) other necessary conditions are fulfilled, and where income from construction of residential dwelling units can be worked out on standalone basis, deduction under section 80 IB (10) will be available in respect of residential segment of the project.

The deduction under section 80IB(10) is available in respect of profits of housing project as a whole , and, as such, it is not relevant as to what is the portion of profits which can be said to be attributable to residential units. This is subject to the rider that in case commercial use of built up area in a project is more than 10% and, for this reason the project cannot be said to be a predominantly housing project, but, in terms of observations made in paragraph 115 above, the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of residential unit segment of the overall project on fulfillment of necessary conditions, the entitlement of incentive deduction will be confined to only to the profits to the residential segment of the overall project.

 limit on commercial use by amendment of 2005 not retrospective: The limit on commercial use of built up area as prescribed by clause (d) of Section 80 IB (10) has no retrospective application, and it applies only w.e.f the assessment year 2005-06.: PUNE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH;

2009-TIOL-217-ITAT-BANG.pdf

DCIT, Davangere Vs M/s Samsons Distilleries Pvt Ltd (Dated : December 12, 2008)

Income Tax - Sec 115JA - Revenue contends that the CIT(A) is not justified in arriving at the conclusion that interest under sections 234B and 234C are not chargeable on the income computed u/s 115JA – Held, assessee  not justified in relying on circular No.762 dated 18-2-1998 and taking a stand that Sec 115JA is not applicable to it as no dividend has been declared. The aforesaid circular contains explanatory notes on provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 and nowhere is it mentioned that if dividend is not declared the company's book profits are exempted from being taxed u/s 115JA. The provisions of sec.115JA(4) and 115JB(5) are similar. The decision rendered in Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd Vs DCIT will also apply to the case falling under the provisions of sec.115JA. CIT(A) order reversed and AO order restored. Revenue Appeal allowed:BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-216-ITAT-MAD.pdf

ACIT, Coimbatore Vs Dr V Ramachandran (Dated : December 31, 2008)

Applicability of sec. 50C – value adopted for stamp duty purposes adopted for computation of capital gains.

For the purpose of computing capital gains, AO adopted the sale value of property as per sec. 50C(1) by taking the value adopted for stamp duty purpose. Since no objections were made by assessee before AO on this method, the plea raised by assessee before ITAT for remitting the matter for valuation by DVO, was rejected.

Appeal by assessee dismissed.:CHENNAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-215-ITAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd Vs DCIT, Chennai (Dated : November 21, 2008)

Income Tax- interest u/s. 244/244A - AO gives credit for MAT after giving credit for TDS and advance tax but no interest has been paid on net refund. - CIT(A) rejected  Appeal on the basis of Circular No.763 dated 18.2.1998.-Held, once the credit is given and there is still tax payable and further credit is given to the TDS and Advance Tax then refund, if any, can be said to have been originating from payment of Advance Tax or credit of TDS and the Assessee in this case becomes entitled to interest in terms of sec.244 and 244A of the Act as held by Apex Court  in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT. Assessee Appeal allowed.:CHENNAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-170-HC-KAR-IT.pdf + aztec story.pdf

Aztec Software & Technology Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: October 21, 2008)

Income tax-Sec 92 -Tribunal decision on Transfer Pricing issues stayed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-568-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Saint Gobin Gyproc (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Rohtak (Dated: February 26, 2009)

ST - Engineering service - Assessee is centrally registered under Service Tax in Mumbai - argues Rohtak Commissionerate has no jurisdiction over it - Since some tax has been paid by the units of the assessee, Revenue directed to ascertain the actual nature of service provided and till then, stay is granted:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-566-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Victor Gaskets India Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I (Dated: January 1, 2009)

Service Tax credit in respect of Canteen and Outdoor Catering services – issue no longer res integra – Credit upheld - Tribunal decision in own case [ 2008-TIOL-409-CESTAT-Mum ] and Larger Bench decision in GTC Industries [ 2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-Mum-LB ] followed.:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-573-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + cod story.pdf

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai II (Dated: March 17, 2009)

COD word is final - Once the Committee of Disputes declines to give permission to pursue appeal before the CESTAT, there is no question of agitating the matter :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-572-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + valuation story.pdf

CCE, Daman Vs M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Dated: February 27, 2009)

Central Excise – valuation - even if there is no flow back of any money, the fact that the price is not sole consideration is sufficient for rejecting the transaction value: the whole arrangement is on paper only with a view to avoid duty and in fact there is no sale. Agreed price is not the sole consideration and is influenced by the factor that free distribution is to be done by the appellants themselves through its medical representatives and whole planning thereof is to be done by the appellants. Thus, the buyer had been absolved of all the expenses incurred on the marketing and distribution of physician samples and the expenses to this effect have been incurred by the appellants themselves and therefore the agreed price is influenced by the factor that the distribution expenses have been taken over by the appellants themselves. Therefore even if there is no flow back of any money, the fact that the price is not sole consideration is sufficient for rejecting the transaction value. Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibits the sale of physician samples and this factor also put a question mark on the sale by the appellants to its distributors. :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-571-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Mahindra Sona Ltd Vs CCE, Nasik (Dated: March 12, 2009)

Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on Catering services is admissible if the same forms a part of production of final products based on CAS-4 formula – Larger Bench decision in GTC Industries [ 2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-Mum-LB ] followed – matter remanded to ascertain the same.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt09_040.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s M R International case;

dgft08pn171.pdf

Exports of handicraft: Registration from EPC to suffice;

dgft08pn170.pdf

DGFT amends SION rate for pharma group products;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-570-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CC, Nhava Sheva (Dated: March 4, 2009)

Redemption fine imposed in respect of goods which have already been exported and were never available for seizure/confiscation at any time – In view of Larger Bench decision in Shiv Kripa Ispat P. Ltd. ( 2009-TIOL-388-CESTAT-MUM-LB ) , redemption fine set aside – Appeals allowed.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-569-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Samsung India Electronic Pvt Ltd Vs CC, New Delhi (Dated: January 28, 2009)

Customs - refund - denial of refund on the ground that the short shipment was noticed only after out of charge order was given - since the facts of the case do not indicate it is case of short shipment, Tribunal decision in case of  Guindy Machine Tools Ltd is not applicable - the appellants are entitled for refund.: DELHI CESTAT;