MoC authorises Zonal Development Commissioners to settle DEPB claims of SEZs;

Reply to debate on Finance Bill: FM says dip in corporate tax mop-up is cyclical ;

Govt levies anti-dumping duty on import of Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn upto 150 deniers from China;

Pradeep Kumar is appointed as Defence Secy for two years + Raj Kumar Singh, IAS (BH-75) as Secretary, Defence Production;

Dr Amit Mitra-led Panel calls for setting up Institute of Valuation Professionals;

Finance Bill proposes amendment to Expl 5A of Sec 271(1)(c) of I-T Act: It's unnecessary

Babus to Fly only Air India ;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 14 July.pdf

Who will audit THE AUDIT?;

stgst.pdf

Implementation of GST: List of 'things' to be done on priority ;

fm story.pdf

Reply to debate on Finance Bill: FM says dip in corporate tax mop-up is cyclical ;

BUDGET ANALYSIS

budgetstory48.pdf

Finance Bill proposes amendment to Expl 5A of Sec 271(1)(c) of I-T Act: It's unnecessary;

2009-TIOL-451-ITAT-DEL.pdf + 14A story.pdf

GE Capital Services India Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: July 3, 2009)

Income tax - Dividend income - exemption u/s 10(33) - Assessee is a NBFC - earns dividend income from its investments in securities - claims exemption - AO allows exemption on net dividend income - disallows 25% of gross dividend as expenditure being incurred as administrative and management costs - CIT(A) concurs with the AO - before Tribunal the assessee argues that if disallowance is calculated as per sub-section (2) and (3) of Sec 14A inserted vide Finance Act 2006 and Rule 8D notified in 2008 as upheld by the Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Management, an absurd result emerges as disallowance of expenditure works out to be many times the dividend earned and it cannot be the intent of the legislature as it violates settled principles of law - Held, in view of the appeal against Daga Capital case being admitted by the Bombay High Court and also another appeal being admitted by the Delhi HC, referring the issue to the ITAT President for setting up five-member larger bench will not serve any practical purpose - plea of the assessee dismissed but the hearing in the instant case blocked for six months to wait for HC decision. :DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-450-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Intimate Clothing Pvt Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 22, 2009)

Income tax - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee is into the business of clothing - deducts TDS but fails to deposit the same due to change in the management of the company - AO passes an order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - Assessee deposits the tax with interest - Penalty proceedings initiated - held, the penalty u/s 271C is impossible only if the assessee fails to deduct tax at source and not for failure to deposit the same with delays - Assessee's appeal allowed. :BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-449-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee, a company engaged in the manufacturing business, paid commission on purchases to a company on account of import of billets purchased from another company and debited this claim of commission to purchase account - AO disallowed the commission holding that assessee failed to substantiate the transaction - CIT(A) partially allowed assessee's appeal - Held, to allow the claim of deduction on account of commission it is necessary for the assessee to establish that the payment has been made for the services rendered - Held, when there is sufficient evidence on the one hand and on the other hand there is mere suspicion, the scales of balance of justice will tilt in favour of the evidence - Revenue's appeal dismissed. :MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-448-ITAT-MAD.pdf

ACIT, Chennai Vs TVS Motors Company Ltd (Dated: April 9, 2009)

Income Tax—Assessee Company, claimed R&D expenditure through a letter which was disallowed to the tune of amount in excess of what was stated in the accounts—CIT(A) allowed the expenditure—Held, when the Assessee has already made a claim in respect of a particular deduction and when it was noted during assessment proceedings, it is clear that the particular claim was not properly quantified, the Assessee would have the right to correct the right figure and it cannot be said that it is a fresh case—Held, w.r.t. expenditure incurred on Dyes & Moulds, dies and moulds cannot be classified as plant and machinery because they themselves cannot be employed independently in manufacturing in an industrial undertaking and, therefore, amounts to revenue expenditure—Held, whenever Sales tax is received the same would be credited and if there is excess liability the same has to be paid to the concerned State Govt., and if there is excessive credit then the same is required to be taxed—Revenue's appeal dismissed. :CHENNAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-447-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s United Breweries Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: April 1, 2009)

Income Tax—Assessee Company gave certain advances to another company which was declared to be a sick company by BIFR and assessee claimed the same to be business loss u/s 28—AO disallowed the same—CIT(A) confirmed AO's order—Held, it may be that the sick company is controlled and managed by the assessee but for that reason alone it cannot be said that the amount standing to the debit of that company can be allowed as business loss—Held, the loss cannot be allowed as business loss u/s.28—Assessee's appeal dismissed. :BANGALORE ITAT;

office_memorandum.pdf

Air Travel on official account - both domestic and international;

sez09ins019.pdf

MoC authorises Zonal Development Commissioners to settle DEPB claims of SEZs;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1054-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Gwalior Distilleries Ltd Vs CCE, Indore (Dated: May 14, 2009)

ST - Packaging and bottling service - held, since the MP High Court has held that packaging and bottling of liquor comes within the meaning of clause (f) of Sec 2 of Central Excise Act and is not liable to service tax, the Revenue has no case - Revenue's appeal dismissed.:DELHI CESTAT ;

2009-TIOL-1053-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs Unity Forge Ltd (Dated: April 28, 2009)

Service tax – Service Tax on Goods Transport Operator service from 16.11.1997 to 01.6.1998 – show cause notices issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act are not maintainable as the assessees came under the provisions of Section 71A, who were not brought under the net of Section 73. : CHENNAI CESTAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1058-CESTAT-DEL-LB.pdf + LB story.pdf

M/s Moser Baer India Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: June 26, 2009)

Central Excise - EOUs liable to pay SAD for DTA Clearances, if exempted from Sales Tax/VAT: In respect of clearances on which sales tax is exempted, SAD components should be included while determining and in respect of clearances on which sales tax is paid, the SAD component should not be included. :DELHI CESTAT (LARGER BENCH) ;

2009-TIOL-1057-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + hercules story.pdf

CCE, Mumbai II Vs  Hercules Mech Works (Dated: June 15, 2009)

Amount payable in terms of Rule 57CC of the CER, 1944 not recoverable under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 – CESTAT dismisses Revenue appeal.

Tribunal decision in Pushpaman Forgings vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai VII [ 2002-TIOL-276-CESTAT-Mum ] as affirmed by Supreme Court relied upon. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1056-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Servo Packaging Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated: April 30, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – reduction of price by the supplier of inputs – the issue stands settled by the Tribunal that the appellant is eligible for full CENVAT Credit as also clarified by the CBEC. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1055-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Madurai Vs Sundaravel Fireworks Industries (Dated: April 28, 2009)

Central Excise – SSI exemption – Brand name - it is crystal clear that brand name in question belonged to SFPL (Sundaravel Fire works Pvt. Ltd) which is a separate legal entity from SFI. Since SFI has used the brand name of another person viz. SFPL on its goods, it is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption in terms of the notifications in question. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_081.pdf

Govt levies anti-dumping duty on import of Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn upto 150 deniers from China;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1058-CESTAT-DEL-LB.pdf + LB story.pdf

M/s Moser Baer India Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: June 26, 2009)

Central Excise - EOUs liable to pay SAD for DTA Clearances, if exempted from Sales Tax/VAT: In respect of clearances on which sales tax is exempted, SAD components should be included while determining and in respect of clearances on which sales tax is paid, the SAD component should not be included. :DELHI CESTAT (LARGER BENCH) ;

2009-TIOL-1052-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Neuland Laboratories Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: April 8, 2009)

Customs – Import – Benefit of exemption notification – Appellant has more than one unit, Advance License is not issued unit wise, but in the but in the name of the Head Office - the finding that imported goods is diverted to Unit-I even prior to the fulfilment of the export obligation is not sustainable. In respect of other imported goods the appellants have fulfilled the export obligation. Hence, demand not sustainable. (Para 2) . : CHENNAI CESTAT;