Form 17 - New TDS Challan effective from April 1, 2009 - CBDT all set to extend date for implementation of new Form;

Lottery tickets are not goods - service tax, if any, would be payable only with effect from May, 2008 and not with retrospective effect; Raising of revenue by State, by itself cannot amount to rendition of any service. If a substantive law is introduced, it will have no retrospective effect, even if it says 'for removal of doubts' - Government loses lottery: Supreme Court (See 'Indirect Tax Basket')

Income tax - Concealment cannot be alleged before Accounting year ends: ITAT (See 'Direct Tax Basket')

Assessee opts to pay tax at compounded rate for a Financial Year - Tariff amended midway - is it applicable to an assessee who had opted for compounding scheme? Matter remanded to High Court: SC (See 'Common Basket')

Transfer of Cenvat Credit – Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 – Transferring manufacturing activities to new premises with new plant and machinery – Arguable matter - Tribunal orders pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit involved (See 'Indirect Tax Basket')

Export of Sugar - Restrictions;

Black money issue: Rahul Gandhi calls for working together with all parties;

CAG decides to move from cash to accrual basis accounting regime;

Indian business should step up engagements with US counterparts: Blackwill

Laloo ruled out support to Congress Party this time;

US Senators say Pakistan to be made accountable for US taxpayers' money;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 6 May.pdf

Government to lose thousands of Crores by introducing a new levy – Lottery Agency wins a lottery from Government;

spl down.pdf

Jobwork of SSI units by non-SSI units - A case of undue excise exemption;

CASE LAWS + Analysis

2009-TIOL-59-SC-CT.pdf + tax sc story.pdf

M/s Varkisons Engineers Vs State of Kerala (Dated: April 23, 2009)

Assessee opts to pay tax at compounded rate for a Financial Year – Tariff amended midway – is it applicable to an assessee who had opted for compounding scheme? Matter remanded to High Court:SUPREME COURT;

RBI NOTIFICATION

RBI Notifi For Annual Policy.pdf

RBI liberalises area of operation policy for Urban Cooperative Banks;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0450.pdf

CAG decides to move from cash to accrual basis accounting regime;

mbuzz0449.pdf

Indian business should step up engagements with US counterparts: Blackwill;

mbuzz0448.pdf

Sri Lanka: UN launches USD 50 mn fund for displaced masses;

2009-TIOL-226-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Madras Vs Shri P N Mallikarjuna Rao (Dated: April 21, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 113 - Surcharge in block assessee case prior to 1.6.2002 - held, issue is no longer res integra as the proviso inserted in Sec 113 is held to be clarificatory in nature by the Apex Court and surcharge is leviable in search cases - Revenue's appeal allowed:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-275-ITAT-HYD.pdf + itat story.pdf

N Venkatalakshmi Dharmavaram Vs ITO, Anantapur (Dated: January 9, 2009)

Concealment cannot be alleged before the Accounting year ends – The fact whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income can come to light only when the assessee files his return. In other words, the offence of concealment is deemed to have been committed on the day when the return is filed. In the present case, the return for the year under consideration was not due at all. Not only that even the accounting year had not yet ended when the survey took place. Thus, simply because the so called excess stock was not found recorded in the books on the date of survey, it cannot be presumed that the assessee would not have accounted for them before the year ended. It is akin to a case where there is prohibition to move certain category of goods out of the State. A Truck operator is carrying such prohibited goods with the intention to cross the border of the State. But before he crosses the border, there is a change of heart and he returns before crossing the border. The question is, has the truck operator committed any offence, the answer is obvious no. Similarly, in the present case also, the goods may be lying unaccounted on the date of survey but that does not necessarily mean that the assessee would not have accounted for them before the year ended. Moreover, it needs to be appreciated the reality that poor illiterate weavers leave their goods with such retailers on approval basis and till the retailers identify their purchases, the property in the goods would certainly belong to the weavers even though physically the goods may be lying with the assessee. Therefore, there is no question of any concealment and consequentially no question of any penalty.:HYDERABAD ITAT;

2009-TIOL-274-ITAT-HYD.pdf

Popuri Ankineedu Vs ACIT, Hyderabad (Dated: December 19, 2008)

Income tax - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - held, No Penalty when the assessee has declared the Income, may be in another year:HYDERABAD ITAT;

2009-TIOL-273-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Competent Films Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: February 9, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 40(a)(ia) - Assessee runs cinema hall and food courts - it takes cinema premises on hire and shares profit based on certain guidelines agreed upon by both parties - Revenue takes the view that the TDS u/s 192 is to be deducted on such payments - held, since it is a profit-sharing agreement and not works contract, no TDS is to be deducted - Assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-272-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s AXA Business Services Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: February 13, 2009)

Exemption u/s 10A is to be allowed without set off of loss of non 10A units . - ACIT vs. Yokogava India Ltd - 2006-TIOL-301-ITAT-BANG – followed - ITAT:BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-60-SC-ST.pdf + sc st story.pdf

Union of India Vs M/s Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd (Dated; May 5, 2009)

Lottery tickets are not goods – For invoking the provisions of Chapter V of the 1994 Act, the basic question which is required to be posed and answered is as to whether the lottery tickets are `goods' within the meaning of Sale of Goods Act. It is evidently not. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunrise Associates held to be so.

Service tax, if any, would be payable only with effect from May, 2008 and not with retrospective effect. Subject to the constitutionality of the Act, in view of the explanation appended to this, we are of the opinion that the service tax, if any, would be payable only with effect from May, 2008 and not with retrospective effect.

There is no other option but to hold that by inserting the explanation appended to clause (19) of Section 65 of the Act, a new concept of imposition of tax has been brought in. The Parliament may be entitled to do so. It would be entitled to raise a legal fiction, but when a new type of tax is introduced or a new concept of tax is introduced so as to widen the net, it should not be construed to have a retrospective operation on the premise that it is clarificatory or declaratory in nature.

If a substantive law is introduced, it will have no retrospective effect, even if it says ‘for removal of doubts' – The question as to whether a Subordinate Legislation or a Parliamentary Statute would be held to be clarificatory or declaratory or not would indisputably depend upon the nature thereof as also the object it seeks to achieve. What we intend to say is that if two views are not possible, resort to clarification and/or declaration may not be permissible . Even if the statute does contain a statement to the effect that the amendment is declaratory or clarificatory, that is not the end of the matter. The Court will not regard itself as being bound by the said statement made in the statute but will proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is an amendment which is intended to change the law and which applies to future periods.

Raising of revenue by the State, by itself cannot amount to rendition of any service. Organizing lottery by the State is tolerated being an economic activity on its part so as to enable it to raise revenue. It may be true that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of taxing statute, the morality aspect may not be of much consequence but such a question assumes significance for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the same amounts to rendition of service within the meaning of the sub-clause.:SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-717-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

Idea Cellular Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad-III (Dated: April 15, 2009)

:ST - Cenvat credit - assessee is a cellular service provider - avails credit for excise duty paid on telephone towers - since the Tribunal has granted unconditional stay in the cases of similarly-placed assesseess, stay is granted and pre-deposit waived off:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-716-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Balls & Cylpebs Ltd Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated: March 27, 2009)

ST - Cenvat credit - assessee avails credit on tax paid on mobile phones - Since the assessee's employees used the phone in relation to the business of the assessee it is allowable but matter remanded for verification of evidence: DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-224-HC-P&H-CX.pdf

CCE, Jalandhar Vs M/s DCM Engineering (Dated: April 30, 2009)

Central Excise - interest on differential duty paid on supplementary invoices - matter remanded to the Tribunal in view of the Supreme Court direction in a similar case of M/s Rucha Engineering (Pvt) Ltd.:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-714-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Ispat Story.pdf

Ispat Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated: April 2, 2009)

Transfer of Cenvat Credit – Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 – Transferring manufacturing activities to new premises with new plant and machinery – Arguable matter - Tribunal orders pre-deposit of the Cenvat Credit involved.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-713-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Akzo Nobel Non-Stick Coatings Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: April 8, 2009)

Central Excise – Letters issued by DGFT invalidating advance licenses as good as ARO, separate ARO not required to be issued – Benefit of exemption for supplies against such invalidation letters not deniable – Impugned order set aside:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cuscir09_014.pdf

Implementation of Phytosanitary requirements in import or export of goods - regarding.;

dgft08pn179.pdf

DGFT revises SION rates for Soda Ash and makes new entry for sawn timber made out of imported logs;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-225-HC-P&H-CUS.pdf

CC, Amritsar Vs M/s Deebee Marketing Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 21, 2009)

DEPB obtained by fraud and sold - buyer not responsible: The assessee respondent admittedly is not a party to the fraud. There are categorical finding that they had purchased DEPB from the open market in the bona fide belief of its being genuine. – Revenue appeal dismissed following 2007-TIOL-701-HC- P&H - CUS:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-715-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Nilos India Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: March 24, 2009)

Customs – Import – Valuation – Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - New case - The Commissioner (Appeals) has made a new case different from the one contained in the order impugned before him and the same is not sustainable in law. ( Para 2):CHENNAI CESTAT;