Govt seeks to retrospectively withdraw tax breaks for realty developers

NCB drive against absconders in drug cases ;

Chhatisgarh Naxals kill 25 cops, including SP;

Success of GST implementation hinges on computerisation of State VAT; Budget allocates Rs 408 Cr;

Investing in women and girls is smart choice in tough economic times: UN;

Gold is unique among commodities: IMF researchers;

DRI (Hqs) seizes another consignment of heroin worth Rs 17 Cr; One arrested;

HP Govt suspends 1988 batch IAS officer for allegedly taking bribe;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 13 July.pdf

Transparency in Budget Making - A Tale of Foreseeable Amendments ;

guest column.pdf

Can a decision taken by Committee be reviewed?

ice cube.pdf

Will Pranabda's fiscal deficit gamble backfire?

BUDGET ANALYSIS

budgetstory47.pdf

Govt seeks to retrospectively withdraw tax breaks for realty developers

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0652.pdf

Rs 3837 Cr unclaimed funds pending with EPFO ;

mbuzz0651.pdf

Companies Act does not empower govt to advise Corporate on jobs ;

mbuzz0650.pdf

NTPC to set up 4000 MW Power Project in Chhattisgarh ;

mbuzz0649.pdf

NCB drive against absconders in drug cases ;

mbuzz0648.pdf

Cultivation of medicinal plants: Govt allocates Rs 72 Cr for current fiscal;

mbuzz0647.pdf

Investing in women and girls is smart choice in tough economic times: UN;

mbuzz0646.pdf

Gold is unique among commodities: IMF researchers;

mbuzz0645.pdf

Swine Flu has killed 429 persons so far: WHO;

2009-TIOL-336-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

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

Income tax - Assessee alleges improper service of notice - CIT(A) sets aside the assessment order and asks AO to rehear - Tribunal disagrees with the CIT(A) as the assessee was represented by her auditor before the AO and defective service of notice becomes meaningless - held, no ground to interfere with the Tribunal order remanding the issue to CIT(A) - Assessee's appeal dismissed. :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-335-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Coimbatore Vs M/s Textool Co Ltd (Dated: June 23, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 37 - Assessee is a manufacturer of textile machine tools - enters into agreement with a licensed agent for promotion of sales - pays additional commission to some individuals recommended by the Agent to boost sales - AO disallows as there is no provision in the agreement to make payment to third parties nor is there any evidence to providing the service - held, for claiming deduction u/s 37, the only two conditions that need to be satisfied are (a) the expenditure should have incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and (b) such expenditure should not be in the nature of capital expenditure. Revenue's appeal dismissed. :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-334-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

Madhu Dadha Vs The ACIT, Chennai (Dated: June 23, 2009)

Income tax - condonation of delay - assessee is a partner in a firm and also a shareholder in a pharma company - search - block assessment - additions made - Appeal filed with 558 days delay - CIT(A) and Tribunal decline to condone delay - held, the Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. Though there is no presumption that the delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, if the admitted facts in that case are taken note of, there is no doubt that the delay on the part of the appellant is deliberate and the appellant is clearly guilty of culpable negligence. Such negligent attitude of the appellant was not taken care to preserve the right of appeal and having been slept over for more than 558 days and not explained the delay without any reasonable doubt, the appellant cannot avail sympathy or discretion of this Court - assessee's appeal dismissed. :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-446-ITAT-MUM.pdf + penalty story.pdf

West Coast Industries Vs Acit, Mumbai (Dated: April 17, 2009)

Income Tax – penalty - where an assessee bona fide believes a sum as not chargeable to tax and subsequent orders of the appellant authority show that such a stand was a justifiable one, it cannot be deemed as a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars - No doubt, as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors case levy of penalty is a culmination of civil proceedings and such penalty is only compensatory in nature, and there is no question of any element of mens rea. But where an assessee bona fide believes a sum as not chargeable to tax and subsequent orders of the appellant authority show that such a stand was a justifiable one, it cannot be deemed as a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Just because an assessee could not offer explanation referring to the concerned case laws in an exact manner, it would not make any significant difference in the state of law as it existed at the time of filing the return. :MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-445-ITAT-MAD.pdf

The DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd (Dated: March 18, 2009)

Income tax - Interest granted by I.T. Department u/s 244A – Taxable in the year of receipt – Income accrued to the assessee since an enforceable debt in the form of order granting refund, was passed – When such interest is granted as refund, the requirements of sec. 4 & 5 are satisfied – Such right was not contingent – Upheld the action of AO in assessing such interest in the year of receipt. :CHENNAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-444-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Asstt CIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Taj International Jewellers (Dated: February 6, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee, engaged in Jewellery export business, deducted Interest paid on loans borrowed for obtaining letter of credit for import of gold from interest received on FDRs and net interest was disclosed in the return - AO disallowed the netting of interest holding that there was no nexus between earning of interest and expenditure of interest - CIT(A) allowed netting of interest - Held, on facts of the case, the interest earned and paid appears to be part of business carried on by the assessee as borrowed funds were utilised for purchase of FDRs—Held, interest paid has to be allowed u/s 57(iii) as amount was borrowed for making and earning income - Held, taxes cannot be levied in total disregard of prevailing factual situation and by considering intention only - Revenue’s appeal dismissed. :DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-333-HC-ALL-ST.pdf + LG story.pdf

LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: June 5, 2009)

CENVAT Credit – Outward Transport – CESTAT does not consider the binding Precedents of High Court order in Ambuja Cements - 2009-TIOL-110-HC- P&H -ST and the Tribunal Larger Bench in 2009-TIOL-830-CESTAT-BANG-LB both of which are binding; Tribunal has failed to address itself to the applicability and binding effect: The tribunal has to maintain a balance between the interest of revenue and rights and interests of an individual and should not refrain itself from exercising the discretionary powers conferred by the Statute, if the facts and circumstances of the case so justify, merely on the pretext that interest of revenue cannot be jeopardized. : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ;

2009-TIOL-1049-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Raj Furnitures Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: May 22, 2009)

Service Tax - completion and finishing Service – Whether cost of material supplied to be excluded or 67% abatement granted – Rs. 2 Crores pre-deposit ordered: although the nature of the activity of completion and finishing was claimed by the assessee as entitled to abatement, the assessee did not bring evidence to the satisfaction of law. Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 2 Crores (Rupees Two Crores) as an interim measure to protect interest of Revenue within six weeks from today. Once it is noticed that the Adjudicating Authority found wilful suppression, that calls for such interim order. : DELHI CESTAT ;

2009-TIOL-1044-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M S Associates Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: May 1, 2009)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee conducts lottery draw and sells lottery ticket for a State Govt under the terms of an agreement - disputes the demand - Revenue pleads for retrospective nature of Explanation inserted to sub-clause (ii) of section 65 (19) of the Finance Act 1994 - held, if it was to be given retrospective effect, the legislative intent would have been more explicit - issue needs detailed examination - waiver of pre-deposit granted. : DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1050-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: April 17, 2009)

Central Excise - Interest debited from Cenvat account and claimed as refund due to payment of Interest in cash again - the appellant are not entitled for refund of Interest debited from CENVAT account - there are no provisions in the Statute to grant refund of interest. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1048-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Technico Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: April 30, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – removal of capital goods – interest – plea that the removal is not by the assessee, but by the finance company is not acceptable - the appellant is liable to pay interest.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1047-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Xerox India Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Hyderabad-IV (Dated: February 4, 2009)

Central Excise – Manufacture & Dutiability of kits of photo copiers cleared from depot after procuring components/assemblies through imports/indigenously – Pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs ordered out of a demand of Rs. 34.70 crores duty/penalty.:BANGLORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1046-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + remand story.pdf

HD Fire Protect Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-III (Dated: June 12, 2009)

Appellate authority choosing to follow either of the conflicting decisions without indicating the reasons there for – matter now stands resolved by the High Court ruling – since conflict obliterated, CESTAT remands the case.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-1051-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + socket story.pdf

CC, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Roop Telesonic Ultrosonix Ltd (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Customs – Imported ‘Socket female’ & ‘Cable connector male 4p’ come under the category of ‘other connectors’ classifiable under 8536 69 90 – Eligible for exemption under S.No.244 of Notification 21/2002-Cus – CESTAT by majority . : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1045-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Yousuf Zulaika Medical Centre Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: April 20, 2009)

Customs – exemption under Notification No 64/88 Cus dated 1.3.1988 for hospital equipment – no infirmity in the order of the lower authority in demanding duty as the hospital had failed to satisfy the condition of the Notification. : CHENNAI CESTAT;