Approval to Finance Bill 2009: FM to reply on Monday afternoon;

Discussion paper on New Direct Tax Code to be released around August 20: Govt

CBI registers corruption case against CIT;

CBDT to set up Centralised Processing Centre at Bangalore;

UN-sponsored Trans Asian Rly Network agreement comes into force ;

Union Cabinet gives nod for design of Rs 500 Cr communication satellite;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 24 july.pdf

Export of non-excisable goods under self-sealing and self-certification – CBEC Clarifies;

potpourri_019.pdf

India promotes tax haven: this honking to Hong Kong;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0686.pdf

CBI registers corruption case against CIT;

mbuzz0685.pdf

CBDT to set up Centralised Processing Centre at Bangalore;

mbuzz0684.pdf

UN-sponsored Trans Asian Rly Network agreement comes into force;

mbuzz0683.pdf

Union Cabinet gives nod for design of Rs 500 Cr communication satellite;

2009-TIOL-19-ARA-IT.pdf

Fujitsu Services Limited (Dated: July 23, 2009)

Income tax - long-term capital gains tax rate - Applicant is a non-resident company from the UK - acquires shares in listed Indian company between 1963 and 1994 - sale of shares to Indian company and its subsidiaries - seeks advance ruling on applicability of concessional rate of 10% - held, issue is no longer res integra as it is already settled that even non-residents are eligible for benefit of lesser rate of 10% as per proviso to Sec 112(1) - the words “before giving effect to 2nd proviso to section 48” only mean that the calculation under the 2nd proviso shall not enter into the computation of capital gain, wherever that proviso is applicable. The said expression cannot be construed as a condition precedent for invoking the proviso to section 112(1) - Application decided in favour of the applicant: ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY

2009-TIOL-479-ITAT-DEL.pdf + sail story.pdf

Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: June 25, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 32 - Assessee is a PSU - is engaged in manufacturing of steel products - gets loans for modernisation and expansion - later Union Government grants waiver of loans and interest - Writtend down value (WDV) of capital assets - AO for reducing the cost of block of assets by the sum waived off - CIT(A) agrees - held, the actual cost may change prospectively as in the cases falling u/s 43A of Act. The waiver of loan by the Central Government would amount to meeting the cost of assets directly or indirectly on behalf of assessee in the year under consideration. Therefore the cost of assets has to be reduced by the amount of loan waived off during the year under consideration for the purposes of allowance of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act.

whether written down value of assets determined u/s 43(6)(c) can be can be disturbed in subsequent assessment year? - held, the actual cost of the asset is not permanent as determined in the year of acquisition - It is liable to change in subsequent year if the circumstances of the case so warrant: DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-478-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s HMA Data Systems Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore(Dated: May 29, 2009)

Income Tax - Capital Gains - Assessee debits profit and loss account with the increase or decrease in the value of investments under the head 'revaluation of investments' and this has not been dealt with separately in computation and treats it as business income - AO opines that the assessee has to declare income or loss without indexation and the head of income cannot be capital gains - CIT(A) finds that the AO had denied the benefit of long-term capital gains from the sale of investment on the ground that the assessee has been debiting the increase or decrease in value to the P & L A/c - he further finds that even if the assesee claimed the diminution or increase in the value of investments, it was not allowed by the AO - hence the AO was not justified in treating the profit on transfer of shares as income from business - on further appeal, held that in view of the categorial finding of facts by the CIT(A) Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Assessee claims deduction for foreign travel - AO disallows - CIT(A) agrees - held, since the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim, the order of the CIT(A) does not call for interference

On the issue of CIT(A)  confirming the disallowance on account of technical support charges as income of the assessee - Held, the mere fact that the assessee had a technical support agreement is not sufficient. There was no business activity in the year under consideration. The expenditure claimed in the absence of any proof of rendering services on the basis of that agreement cannot be allowed. On alternative plea of assessee matter remanded to AO to decide it on merit. . :BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-477-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Shree Dhootapapeshwar Ltd (Dated: March 30, 2009)

Income Tax - Capital Gains - Assessee  is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Ayurvedic medicines - Assessee raises fund through its surplus land by an agreement where the assessee has to get 50% of the constructed area in consideration of sale of the said land - Assessee declares profit arising out of said transaction as Capital Gains - AO considers it as income from business activity - CIT(A) allows assessee's Appeal - Held, on the terms of the agreement, it could not be said that it is a joint venture agreement and that, it is clear that what is received by the assessee company in terms of the constructed area, is part of the sale consideration against the sale of plot. CIT(A) order upheld - Revenue's Appeal dismissed. :MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-476-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Chandulal Mohanlal & Sons Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: February 06, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee claims deduction u/s 80HHC - Deduction reduced in assessment order after excluding 90% of gross interest, boiling charges and re-assortment charges from the profits of the business - CIT(A) dismisses assessee's Appeal – Tribunal remands matter back to AO to decide the case on the basis of decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bangalore Clothing Co - AO rejects the explanation of the assessee and holds that the decision of Bombay High Court is not applicable - CIT(A) agrees with the AO's order - Held, in view of the decision of Apex Court in CIT Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair the the order of the authorities below excluding 90% interest, valuation charges and re-assortment charges from the profits of the business for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC is correct and in accordance with law - Assessee's Appeal dismissed.:MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1116-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Premier Enterprises Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: March 3, 2009)

Service Tax – Commission received for causing sale of beer as del credere agent – Eligible for exemption under notification 13/2003-ST and not liable to service tax under BAS – Impugned orders : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1115-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + error story.pdf

Golden Horn Container Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated: June 5, 2009)

Tribunal cannot give a go-bye to a patent error found in the orders of the lower authorities – composite penalty could not have been imposed under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as both operate in different scenarios – CESTAT remands matter to original authority.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1114-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Karnataka Land Army Corpn Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore (Dated: April 1, 2009)

Service Tax – Services provided by State Government Undertaking for construction of roads, side-walks and other civil works to civic bodies – Prima facie, revenue has no case to demand service tax on such activities under ‘maintenance and repair service' – Full waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted: BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-360-HC-MAD-CX.pdf + writ story.pdf

Central Excise – appeal not filed against Assistant Commissioner's order – High Court cannot entertain writ ; Admittedly, as against the order impugned in this Writ Petition, the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), which is not availed of by it. Nothing also prevented the petitioner from availing such remedy. Without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of this Writ Petition, which is not maintainable. : MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1113-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s L G Polymers India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: February 26, 2009)

Central Excise – Revenue cannot re-argue same points earlier decided in appeal through an ROM – Section 35C to be pressed into service only when there is an error apparent on record : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1112-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s IBEX Gallagher Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: October 21, 2008)

Central Excise – Solar powered electric power fencing is not excisable goods – Impugned order set aside: BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-1111-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Advance Petrochemicals Ltd Vs CC, Ahmedabad (Dated: April 23, 2009)

Customs - Direction given by Tribunal to classify poly glycol-2000 under Chapter 3812 and re-quantify duty involved in de-novo adjudication not complied with – No ground for Revenue to contend that assessment would be completed only in respect of 2 B/Es when remand order of Tribunal does not restrict it two B/Es – It is settled law that lower authority has to follow directions in Tribunal's remand order if no appeal has been filed against such order – Lower authority to comply with remand order of Tribunal and finalize all five B/Es together : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;