Dear FM, is power not an infrastructure?

Will Budget propel REIT's chapter in Real Estate growth story?

No proposal from CJI to set up SC Bench in South India: Law Minister

Economic Survey expresses concern over proliferation of SEZs;

CBDT to issue CITs' Annual General Transfer order post-Budget;

Multi-barrel attack on drugs syndicates: DRI makes a series of seizures across India;

Criminals pumping illegal money in football: FATF Report;

Govt to set up 350 food processing units in 100 days;

Govt hikes petrol price by Rs 4 per litre and diesel price by Rs 2 per litre;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 02 July.pdf

Income Tax – TDS - Remittances to non-residents under section 195 - Procedure for furnishing information;

cobweb.pdf

Does GST mean 'Go Slow Tax' reform for States in India? - A case for Single GST;

budgetrunup22.pdf

Dear FM, is power not an infrastructure?

budgetrunup21.pdf

Will Budget propel REIT's chapter in Real Estate growth story?

CASE LAW + ANALYSIS

2009-TIOL-327-HC-MUM-ST.pdf + suzlon story.pdf

Suzlon Infrastructure Ltd Vs UoI (Dated : May 2, 2009)

CESTAT – ROM is permissible even while the matter is pending with the Third Member – An application for rectification would be maintainable even when a reference is made to a Member. Apart from the language of the provisions it would be a more constructive and purposeful method of answering the issue. Holding otherwise, and accepting the stand of the revenue would be to delay the proceedings and may also again lead to other points being referred once again.

Tribunal has to frame points for determination and each point has to be answered. The points for determination would be those points which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy and if decided would have the affect of determining the controversy in the appeal. For this purpose while hearing and deciding an appeal the Tribunal is bound to frame points for determination which are relevant for deciding the issue in controversy in the appeal. Once the points for determination are fixed the members are bound to answer the points so framed. It is only on the points on which there is difference of opinion, then only is there a need to refer to a third member those points for determination. It is in that context while disposing of appeals the tribunal is bound to fix points for determination and answer the said points.

It is the cardinal duty of Court or Tribunal to do complete justice: it is the cardinal duty of Court or Tribunal to do complete justice between the parties subject to its jurisdiction in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court or tribunal in such case has an inherent jurisdiction to decide an application for rectification so that the real controversy in issue is decided: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0623.pdf

No proposal from CJI to set up SC Bench in South India: Law Minister;

mbuzz0622.pdf

Economic Survey expresses concern over proliferation of SEZs

mbuzz0621.pdf

Multi-barrel attack on drugs syndicates: DRI makes a series of seizures across India;

mbuzz0620.pdf

Criminals pumping illegal money in football: FATF Report;

mbuzz0619.pdf

Govt to set up 350 food processing units in 100 days;

Customer Services India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: March 20, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 92C - Transfer Pricing - assessee is a subsidiary of USA-based holding company - provides IT-enabled services to customers of its holding company - AO refers the case to TPO for determining arm's length price - TPO relies on two previous years' data and ignores the financial year data, for determing ALP - makes adjustment in final income returned - CIT(A) disagrees with the TPO as no justification is recorded for overlooking pertinent financial year data - held, TPO can invoke proviso to Rule 10B(4) for using prior years' data provided such data influences determination of transfer price - otherwise, it is mandatory for TPO not to ignore data relating to pertinent financial year in which transactions with associated enterprise take place - Assessee's appeal allowed

Sec 92C(2) - 5% margin allowed to the assessee for determining ALP - Revenue disallows the benefit of 5% margin of arithmetical mean as allowed by the law - held, it is settled law that for making adjustment the assessee is entitled to avail 5% margin and it cannot be denied - Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-423-ITAT-BANG.pdf

DCIT, Bangalore Vs M/s United Racing & Bloodstock Breeders Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 31, 2009)

Income tax - assessee is into horse racing business - files loss return - AO reduces losses by adopting value of import of horses declared to the Customs - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had made a case for higher value and the assessee had settled the dispute through Settlement Commission - Since the assessee had paid Customs Duty on higher value before the Commission, the AO made addition of the value declared to the Commission and the one declared in its return - held, as decided earlier in the assessee's own case the value declared for the Customs purpose cannot be imported into the income tax act and may lead to formation of opinion that the assessee did not declare correct value of import - Revenue's appeal dismissed: BNAGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-326-HC-UTTRANCHAL-IT.pdf

Income tax - Sec 57(iii) - Assessee is into construction of hydro electric project - claims deduction on interest earned on deposits with banks, interest on rent received from own employees and oustees of dam - Revenue disallows but CIT(A) and Tribunal allow the same - held, since the construction project had not commenced, the interest income earned on rent from employees and oustees is to be treated as capital receipt and allowing deducton to the extent of 2.5% towards administrative costs on interent income on short term deposit is valid in law - Revenue's appeal dismissed : UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-325-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

Sumitra Menon Vs ACIT, Chennai (Dated : June 15, 2009)

Income tax - Notice u/s 143(2) - Assessee alleges irregularity in serving notice - Tribunal sets aside CIT(A) order given in favour of the assessee on the ground that the assessee was properly represented before the AO by her auditor - held, since the alleged defect in the notice was virtually ignored by the assessee who was represented by the auditor, no infirmity in the Tribunal's order setting aside the CIT(A) order - Assessee's appeal dismissed:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-324-HC-KAR-IT.pdf

CIT, Bangalore Vs Philips Software Centre Pvt Ltd (Dated : April 15, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 92C ( 2) - Can TP provisions be invoked in a case where Sec 10A benefits being availed by taxpayer? – Stay granted in 2009-TIOL-123-HC- KAR -IT modified – No recovery for any AY:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1000-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CST, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Amola Holdings Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 1, 2009)

ST - construction of complex service - abatement of 67% - Assessee first avails credit on input services and also capital goods - then reverses the same to avail abatement - Revenue denies it on the ground that the assessee first availed credit and then abatement after reversal of credit which is not permissible - Commissioner (A) disagrees with the Revenue - held, it is consistent view of the judiciary that once credit is reversed, the assessee can avail other benefits - no substance in Revenue's appeal : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-999-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Global Minitech Ltd Vs CCE, BBSR-II (Dated: June 2, 2009)

ST - Cargo handling service - assessee enters into contract for extraction and transfer of coal - held, since loading is incidental to the main contract and the Tribunal has, in a similar case, held that the assessee is not providing cargo handling service, it is a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit :KOLKATA CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CIRCULAR

excircular891.pdf

Eligibility of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. to pipe fittings (joints, sleeves, elbow, couplings, etc.)

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1002-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + penalty story.pdf

M/s Eastern Medikit Ltd Vs CCE, Gurgaon (Dated: May 13, 2009)

No penalty can be imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of non-payment of the amount due under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 :DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1001-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Thane-II/Nagpur Vs Axiom Impex International Ltd (Dated: June 3, 2009)

No case of the Revenue that the mobile phones in question were used by the factory workers/employees of the respondent for purposes unconnected with the business activity – Cenvat Credit available in view of Gujarat High Court decision in Excel Crop Care Ltd. [ 2008-TIOL-568-HC-Ahm-CX ] relied upon – Revenue appeal dismissed :MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-998-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Millenium Marbles Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: June 1, 2009)

Mere difference in the quantity or the manufacturer cannot, by itself, be sufficient to classify the goods as being not identical for the purpose of fixation of transaction value under rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 – Transaction value arrived at in terms of contemporaneous imports is proper in law – Prima facie case not made by appellant – Pre-deposit ordered to safeguard interest of Revenue. :MUMBAI CESTAT;