DGIT (Admn) - Nodal agency for co-ordination between the BIFR and CBDT;

Dear FM, time has changed but cash payment limit remains adamantly fixed at Rs 20000

FM to begin Budget Speech at 11 AM;

Personal Income Tax: Exemption limit all set to cross Rs two lakh this time;

Exemption limit for housing loan and interest likely to make huge jump;

India Inc wish for investment allowance all set to be granted;

Sec 10A/10B benefits about to be extended today;

Service tax rate all set to go back to pre-Stimulus days;

FM unlikely to scrap FBT; may dilute it for certain expenditures;

UPA Govt reconciled to dual GST system; FM all set to stick to April 1, 2010 deadline;

FM to unfold special package for exports, particularly textiles;

Ambit of TDS and service tax likely to be extended;

Cenvat Credit Rules likely to be tightened;

No job cuts in Air India, says Civil Aviation Minister ;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 06 July.pdf

DGIT (Admn) - Nodal agency for co-ordination between the BIFR and the CBDT;

budgetrunup29.pdf

Dear FM, time has changed but cash payment limit remains adamantly fixed at Rs 20000;

guest column.pdf

India's journey towards superpower status ... Road Ahead!

2009-TIOL-433-ITAT-BANG.pdf + debt story.pdf

State Bank of Mysore Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Once the Revenue is accepting that profit arising on the maturity of investment is business income, then it cannot take the stand that it is not stock-in-trade: the assessee is entitled to value all the investment at cost prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such investment as stock in trade.

Bad debts recovered – when no deduction claimed for bad debts, recovery cannot be taxed: if such bad debts exceed the reserve, the excess amount alone can be charged to P&L account as per 36(1 )( vii) of the Act, in such event section 41(4) comes to play, when the excess amount so charged to P&L account u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act is subsequently recovered from bad debts. In this given case, the assessee asserts that the actual amount of Rs.39,38,25,324 is adjusted against the reserve created by virtue of section 36(1)( viia ) of the Act and had not exceeded the reserve account. Therefore, the assessee claims no amount was charged to P&L account by invoking section 36(1 )( vii) of the Act. Since the assessee has not claimed bad debts u/ s.36 ( 1)(vii) of the Act, but purely adjusted the amount against the reserve created u/s. 36(1)( viia ) of the Act, section 41(4) cannot be invoked. :BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-432-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Excel Industries Ltd Vs JCIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 12, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 80HH - Assessee claims that the deduction u/s 80HH ought to be allowed in respect of the profits of the concerned units before deducting admissible depreciation in respect of profits and gains of newly established undertakings in backward areas - AO determines the deduction u/s 80HH at nil after making the adjustments - CIT(A) upholds the action of AO in excluding other income, except income from sale of scrap - Held, On the issue of depreciation and rent recovery, in view of decision of Apex court in case of Pandian Chemicals Co. Ltd, assessee's claim dismissed. CIT (A) order upheld and Assessee's Appeal dismissed.

Section 35AB , 35AB - On the issue of CIT(A) upholding the action of the JCIT in treating expenditure as incurred on technical know-how and holding it allowable u/s 35AB instead of as revenue expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act - Held, in the view of Tribunal decision in assessee own case of earlier year. Assessee Appeal allowed. :MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-431-ITAT-MAD.pdf

Mrs G V Vidhya Vs ITO, Erode (Dated: January 30, 2009)

Income tax - Interest u/s 234B can be levied in re-assessment proceedings even when no such interest was levied in the original proceedings.

In waiver petition, CCIT held that interest u/s 234B is leviable – consequent proceedings by AO to give effect to such an order is not appealable.

Rectification order substitutes the original order only on matters dealt with therein – Time limit for filing rectification to be considered on the basis of date of order in which subject matter of rectification application was last dealt with – Since the present rectification sought by the assessee is with reference to matters in original assessment order passed more than four years back, the present rectification application is beyond time. :MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1018-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Anagram Capital Ltd Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: June 22, 2009)

ST - Stock broking - Revenue demands tax on NSE transaction charges - held, since the assessee had declared so and also intimated the Revenue that such charges not to form grosss assessable value for levy of service tax, the SCN is beyond the period of limitation - Stay granted with waiver of pre-deposit: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1016-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

Banner Pharmacaps Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & Cus, Vapi (Dated: June 3, 2009)

ST - Cenvat credit - Assessee avails 75% abatement and pays tax on GTA services - since consignment notes do not declare about non-availment of credit on inputs, the Revenue denies abatement - held, in view of Tribunal's decision in the case of Sunhill Ceramics where it was held that the service receiver can avail abatement even in the absence of declaration, stay granted : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-328-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + penalty story.pdf

CCE & C, Raigad Vs M/s Fibre Foils Ltd (Dated: June 23, 2009)

Central Excise - Mandatory Penalty only when the ingredients of Section 11AC are satisfied: the Commissioner (Appeals) has also not addressed the issue as to whether the penalty is imposable on account of fraud, willful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts or contravention of any other provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade duty. It is clear that not only there has to be fraud or willful misstatement or collusion or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules, but that must be with an intent to evade the payment of duty: The only reason given has been that the assessee had not maintained proper accounts of raw materials and finished goods in statutory records. This would not meet or satisfy the predicates of Rule 57-I (4) of the Rules.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT ;

2009-TIOL-1019-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Walchandnagar Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Pune III (Dated: June 2, 2009)

Section 4 of CEA, 1944 - Chief Design Engineer stating that the Electrical centrifuges could not work without assembly of the bought out items – being essential parts their value includible in assessable value – Pre-deposit ordered. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-1017-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CC (Import), Mumbai Vs M/s Hindustan Rubbers (Dated: June 5, 2009)

Commissioner(A) has no power of remand from 11.05.2001 – Order set aside and Commissioner(A) directed to re-adjudicate the matter himself – P&H High Court decision in Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. [ 2007-TIOL-152-HC-P&H-CUS ] followed. :MUMBAI CESTAT;