Union Budget - A simple wish-list for FM to simplify legislative intent (See 'Budget Run-Up')

RTI Act – Right to Information for the Citizen and Right to conceal it for the Government;

CCEA approves Rs 107.76 per quintal rate for SMP for sugarcane for current season;

Unique Identification Authority: Cabinet gives nod for creation of Chairperson's post for Authority in rank of Cabinet Minister - Nandan Nilekani to be appointed as first Chairperson + also approves tribunal for water disputes;

Safety in civil aviation sector: DGCA follows only 54 of 70 recommendations of ICAO;

SEZs are not beyond purview of labour laws: Kerala Govt;

UN Chief urges G-8 to prevent climate change;

India Business Forum launched in London;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 25 June.pdf

Provisional Anti Dumping Duty on DETPC;

cobweb.pdf

Indian slush money in tax havens: Will FM continue to shy away from taking the issue head-on?

budgetrunup14.pdf

Union Budget - A simple wish-list for FM to simplify legislative intent;

RBI

rbi_notification .pdf

Frauds in borrowal accounts having multiple banking arrangements;

RTI

rti_clarification_1.pdf + rti_clarification_2.pdf + rti_clarification_3.pdf

RTI Act – Right to Information for the Citizen and Right to conceal it for the Government;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0602.pdf

Safety in civil aviation sector: DGCA follows only 54 of 70 recommendations of ICAO;

mbuzz0601.pdf

India Business Forum launched in London;

mbuzz0600.pdf

UN Chief urges G-8 to prevent climate change;

2009-TIOL-405-ITAT-DEL-SB .pdf + sb story.pdf

ACIT, Moradabad Vs M/s Hindustan Mint & Agro Products Pvt Ltd Chandausi (Dated: June 23, 2009)

Where deduction u/s 80HHC as also u/s 80-IA are claimed relief allowed u/s 80-IA is to be deducted from profits and gains on which relief u/s 80HHC of the Act is to be computed – Special Bench order in Rogini Garments upheld There is absolutely no justification for allowing repeated deductions on profit and gain on which deduction has been allowed u/s 80-IA or 80-IB of the Act. The Special Bench in the case of Rogini Garments rightly held that repeated deductions of same profit and gains of undertaking were not intended to be disallowed. Above conclusion was rightly arrived at and is confirmed.:DELHI ITAT {SPECIAL BENCH};

2009-TIOL-404-ITAT-MAD.pdf + mat story.pdf

ITO, Chennai Vs M/s Data Software Research Company (International) Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 16, 2009)

Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) - carry forward is available for a total of six (1+5) years: There is no ambiguity in the language of sub-section (3) of 115JAA . The carry forward is available for a total of six (1+5) years. It appears that the confusion has arisen because of the language used in the CBDT Circular No.763 dated 18.2.1998.

It is trite law that statutory provisions prevail over a Circular in case of a contradiction between the two: The period of 'five assessment years', mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) contradicts with what is stated in sub-section (3) of section 115JAA . It is trite law that statutory provisions prevail over a Circular in case of a contradiction between the two. This position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries ( 2008-TIOL-194-SC- CX -CB ) .:CHENNAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-403-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Surya Foods & Agro Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, New Delhi (Dated: April 30, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 37(1) - AO after invoking  the provisions of Explanation to section 37(1) disallows commission on sales paid to stockiest - CIT(A) confirms it - Held, just because the assessee has made payment of commission to persons who have assisted the assessee in obtaining information in regard to the requirement and for the lack of evidence by the revenue that such payment of commission, as made by the assessee, were against public policy or were not permitted by law, it cannot be said that the payment of commission is illegal payment - Assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-402-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Mr Y M Shetty Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: March 20, 2009)

Income Tax - exemption u/s 54(1) - AO rejects the claim of the assessee in respect of the exemption u/s. 54 with the observation that  the assessee has not invested the entire amount of capital gains arising out of sale of flat in the new house property acquired - The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO - Held, there is no requirement in law to suggest that only the sale consideration of the asset if utilized for the purchase of the new asset can avail the benefit of exemption u/s 54 (1) - Assessee's Appeal allowed:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-401-ITAT-MUM.pdf

IA & IC Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: February 17, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 36(1)(iii) - Assessee pays interest on an amount borrowed in the earlier year - also receives interest income - AO disallows interest expenses (net claimed by the assessee company ) and adds the same to total income – CIT(A) dismisses appeal by holding that it cannot be said that the interest has been paid for the running of the business and it has been paid only for holding the shares in other companies - Held,  in view of the additional evidence matter remitted to AO to reconsider the  disallowance of interest - Assessee's Appeal allowed.:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-400-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd Vs DCIT, Dehradun (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Income tax - India-Korea DTAA - Article 25 - Assessee is a Korean bank, having a PE in India - AO applies higher tax rate applicable to foreign companies - Assessee pleads since Article 25 of the tax treaty is about non-discrimination, the tax rate applicable to domestic companies be applied to its case - CIT(A) disagrees with the assessee - held, in view of the Explanation to Sec 90(2) of the I-T Act, inserted vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f 1.4.1862, whereby it is clarified that a lower tax rate applicable to a cooperative society cannot be allowed to a foreign bank and a higher tax rate not to be construed as less favourable by foreign companies, and also the Tribunal's earlier decision against the assessee, the appeal of the assessee has no legs to stand on - Assessee's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-968-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Modi-Mundipharma Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Meerut (Dated: April 1, 2009)

ST - IPR Service - Assessee is a pharma company - gets into agreement with a non-resident company for transfer of technical knowhow in 1990 - payment to be made on annual sales basis till the patent right lasts - Revenue raises demand - held, since the agreement was signed in 1990 and the payments being made on deferred payment basis and no regular update or supplementary service being provided by the non-resident company, it is a one time affair, the royalty paid under such agreement does not attract service tax introduced much later - Assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-967-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs CCE, Vadodara (Dated: June 8, 2009)

ST - Cenvat Credit - Assessee avails credit for tax paid on outward transport - Revenue denies on the basis that the delivery was made at the factory gate - assessee claims it is entitled to take credit as the goods were sold to customers on FOR destination basis - held, in view of the P&H HC decision and Board's circular the assessee has prima facie a strong case - waiver from pre-deposit granted :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-966-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Aditya Builders Vs CCE, Ahmedabad III (Dated:June 9, 2009)

ST - Construction service - Assessee carries out certain civil works for ONGC - Demand raised and penalty imposed - Assessee pays the entire tax but disputes the part of liability for period prior 16.6.05 when the definition of construction service was amended - held, since the tax in full is paid and the assessee being an individual in the beginning it is a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-972-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + concept story.pdf

CCE, Aurangabad Vs Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Dated: May 19, 2009)

Inputs exclusively used for manufacture of exempted final products – once the 8% amount is paid under rule 6 of the CCR, 2004, the credit cannot be questioned – CESTAT: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-971-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd, Rajahmundry Vs CC & CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: December 12, 2008)

Central Excise – Valuation – CAS-4 – Royalty charges – Revenue neutral – The appellants clear goods in bulk to their packing stations, where retail packings are cleared on payment of duty in terms of Section 4A. Principles enunciated under CAS-4 applicable when goods are cleared in bulk. The royalty charges based on sales are already included in the price fixed for retail sales. Hence, the entire exercise appears to be revenue neutral. There is no merit in the impugned order. (Para 6) :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-970-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Mysore Cements Ltd Tumkur District Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: February 18, 2009)

Central Excise – Availability of exemption notification 4/06-CE for clearance of cement to institutional consumers – Prima facie case in favour of appellants – Full waiver of pre-deposit in view of Tribunal decision in Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Trichy – 2009-TIOL-139-CESTAT-MAD and stay granted :BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-969-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + Grasim Industries Ltd Ahmd story.pdf

CC( P), Jamnagar Vs M/s Grasim Industries Ltd (Dated: May 21, 2009)

Customs – valuation – demurrage charges – whether includable in the assessable value for the period prior to 26.9.2006 – matter referred to Larger Bench. :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;