Finance Minister 'buffered' by own advisors; delay persists in selection of Members for CBDT & CBEC;

Indian, French Navy rescue dhow with 14 Indians from pirates;

Central and State GST certain but where are machinery provisions?

Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery Service: Levy of Service Tax and possible hardships

Nandan to use PAN data base for his Unique Identity - Big Brother watching?

Many pvt sector firms are under consideration for take over by SAIL: Minister;

Guwahati DRI continues to make life miserable for ganja smugglers;

Indian, French Navy rescue dhow with 14 Indians from pirates;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 16 July.pdf

Tariff Value of Brass Scrap increased and steep fall in the rate of poppy seeds;

cobweb.pdf

Finance Minister 'buffered' by own advisors; delay persists in selection of Members for CBDT & CBEC;

BUDGET ANALYSIS

budgetstory50.pdf

Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery Service: Levy of Service Tax and possible hardships;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0660.pdf

Guwahati DRI continues to make life miserable for ganja smugglers;

mbuzz0659.pdf

Indian, French Navy rescue dhow with 14 Indians from pirates;

2009-TIOL-339-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + it story.pdf

CIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Grasim Industries Limited (Dated: July 8, 2009)

Income Tax Appeal – High Court has no power to condone Delay: once the Apex Court has held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing Appeal under Section 35 G of the Excise Act, there is no option but to hold that this Court has no power to condone delay under Section 260 A of the I.T. Act because Section 260 A of the I.T. Act is pari materia with Section 35 G of the Excise Act.”: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-458-ITAT-MUM.pdf

DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Welspun India Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 3, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee company filed a loss return but subsequently revised the loss return for 3 consecutive years—Special audit u/s 142(2A) was directed and based upon the report of special auditor, certain additions were made while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) - CIT(A) allowed assessee's appeal by quashing the assessment orders - Held, for assumption of jurisdiction to reassessment, it is the AO who has to assert on materials available to prove that he has ‘reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment, an opinion of the third person (Special Auditor's report) cannot be "reason to believe" of the Assessing Officer - Revenue's appeal dismissed.: MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-457-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Veritas Properties Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: March 13, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 23(1) - assessee is into real estate business - buys a flat and gives the same to one of its Directors for residential purpose - A part of the flat is used for its sister concern for holding business meetings - receives a nominal rent from the sister concern - claims it as business income and deducts expenditure from the same - AO determines huge ALV on the basis of similar properties in the vicinity and disallows the same as business income - held, as per law the appropriate couse for the AO will be to determine the ALV for that portion of the flat which is occupied by the Director on the basis of retable value determined by the municipal authorities and the income from the remaining portion used for commercial purpose be treated as business income and expenses related to the same be allowed - Assessee's appeal allowed.: MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-456-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Metro Exporters Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: February 20, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 36(1)(iii) - Assessee  claims  interests on the loan taken from sister/group concern but  gives interest-free funds to the same sister/group concern - AO makes disallowance – CIT(A) confirms it - Held, if an assessee having sufficient interest free funds, in the form of capital reserves and other funds without interest bearing from relatives and friends not related to business, to cover funds given interest free or utilized other than for business purposes, no disallowance is warranted. If the own funds are not sufficient to cover interest free advances, a proportionate disallowance is warranted. While examining interest free funds available with assessee and interest free funds given a care is required to be taken that these funds were not related to business of the assessee. Capital and Reserves are certainly assessee's own interest funds. The commercial expediency is also required to be established by the assessee by furnishing relevant material based on which it can be said that interest tree funds given to sister concern are in conformity with provisions of Companies Ac and provisions of regulatory bodies. Before disallowing such interest the AO is duty bound to examine those material as enough power in this regard provided in IT Act. Matter remanded back to AO to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law keeping in above discussion & guidelines.: MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-455-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Shree Durga Capitals Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: March 25, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee company raised money through share capital issue to 11 parties - During a search action u/s 132 blank share certificates were found and AO accordingly treated the money alleged to be raised as income of the assessee on the ground of confessional statement of a director - CIT(A) confirmed AO's order - Held, assessee issued share capital to 11 parties on receiving the money through proper banking channerl and all the parties are assessed to tax and they have confirmed in having purchased shares of the assessee company, therefore, retraction or non disclosure of the amount was bonafide - Held, no direct confession was made as the assessee agreed because of compelling circumstances to pay tax on the amount of Rs 2 crores and thereafter, disclosure was not made in the return of income for simple reason that share capital raised by the assessee was genuine and all the entities to whom shares were allotted were identifiable - Assessee's appeal allowed.: MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-338-HC-MAD-ST.pdf + hc st story.pdf

M/s Madras Hire Purchase Association Vs UoI (Dated: June 09, 2009)

Constitutional validity of Service Tax on hire purchase and leasing upheld: MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1067-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Phoenix It Solutions Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST, Visakhapatnam (Dated: February 18, 2009 )

Service Tax – Services provided by call centres eligible for benefit of exemption notification 8/2003-ST – 25% of tax paid along with interest – Pre-deposit of balance amount waived and stay granted.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1066-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Nahar Fibres Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: April 27, 2009)

Service tax – Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation from factory gate to port - Pre-deposit waived and recovery stayed.: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1065-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Visakhapatnam (Dated: March 23, 2009)

Service Tax – ‘Operation & maintenance' of power plant under agreement does not come under maintenance & repair service or management, maintenance & repair service, as it amounts to service to self – CESTAT decision in Rolls Royce Industrial 2004-TIOL-529-CESTAT-DEL followed – When department has knowledge of the said activity, extended period not invokable – Prima facie case in favour of appellants – Full waiver of pre-deposit allowed and stay granted.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1070-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + virgo story.pdf

M/s Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: April 20, 2009 )

Central Excise – excisability of Signages – Signages are not immovable goods as contended by the appellants – Signages are capable of being assembled at the premises of the appellants and do not emerge as an immovable property on assembly or erection - An item which is fixed in the earth can continue to be movable and excisable if the same is capable of being shifted from one place to another without having to dismantle the same into the constituent components. Undisputedly signages are capable of being assembled at the premises of the appellants and then transferred to the site of its erection after dismantling the same. Demand of duty and invoking larger period upheld penalty on the Managing Director upheld but quantum reduced (Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002). :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1069-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Nahar Spg & Wvg Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated: February 23, 2009 )

Central Excise – Time of removal in respect of goods removed from the place of removal shall be deemed to be the time at which such goods are cleared from the factory – Excess duty paid on price at the time of clearance from factory and lower price charged on the same day at depot sufficient to establish that there is no unjust enrichment – No need to chase the goods and see at what price they are sold at the depot – Impugned order set aside and order of original authority sanctioning refund restored.:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1068-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Kaveri Pet And Polyforms Pvt Ltd Ernakulam District Vs CCE, Cochin (Dated: January 23, 2009 )

Central Excise – Supply of moulds and dies free of cost, value of which amortized in the value of final products viz., plastic moulded chairs, tables etc manufactured on job work basis – In the absence of mutuality of interest in the business of each other, job worker and raw material supplier cannot be regarded as related persons – No merits in impugned order – Demand of differential duty, interest and imposition of penalty set aside.:BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt09_090.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Jasmine International Corp;

cnt09_089.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Tek Chand International;

cnt09_088.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s K D S Hosiery Ltd;

cnt09_087.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s O V Impex;

cnt09_086.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Sonia Overseas;

cnt09_085.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s S S Trading Co;

cnt09_084.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Dilip Impex;

cnt09_083.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Euroasia Global;

cnt09_082.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Salecha Exports;

cnt09_081.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Moser Baer;

cnt09_080.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Gupta Oils;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1064-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Bharat Seats Ltd Vs CC, Kandla (Dated: April 24, 2009)

Customs – Project Imports – Evidence on record indicate actual expansion of unit was due to equipment & machinery leased out by customer – Partial import of plant & machinery which has not contributed to expansion of unit violates Project Import Regulations – Not eligible for benefit of exemption Notification No.90/94 dated 01.03.1994 – Matter remanded to original authority to consider alternate plea of concessional rate of duty under notification 63/94-Cus – Impugned order partially upheld.:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;