Govt upgrades guidelines for classification of hotels;

CDC to certify technology commercialisation specialists;

I-T - Sec 54F - assessee is co-owner in a residential house - sells some shares in order to construct additional floor on existing house - exemption for capital gains - mere extension of existing property not to entitle assessee to benefit: ITAT Third Member;

We imported savings - did not export them - RBI Governor Subba Rao;

Anti-Dumping laws: The End of Zeroing Era;

Guidelines on management of chemical terrorism released;

Parliament okays Education Bill; free education for all upto Class VIII;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 5 aug.pdf

EDI infrastructure under the 'Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009' - CBEC instructions;

spl down.pdf

Anti-Dumping laws: The End of Zeroing Era;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0725.pdf

Govt upgrades guidelines for classification of hotels;

mbuzz0724.pdf

CDC to certify technology commercialisation specialists;

mbuzz0723.pdf

Guidelines on management of chemical terrorism released;

mbuzz0722.pdf

Rs 200 Cr Traffic Plan for Delhi and NCR;

2009-TIOL-392-HC-P-H-IT.pdf

Surinder Kumar Vs ITO, Narnaul (Dated: July 29, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 69 - Assessee is a 19-year-old taxpayer - purchases two FDRs of the AY 1996-97 and two more for subsequent year - fails to disclose the same in his return - AO acquires information about the FDRs and treats them as undisclosed income - Additions made - CIT and Tribunal uphold the AO's order on the ground that the assessee was only a student in the previous year and had no known source of income and never filed any return of income in the past and such a sum is undisclosed income - held, findings the CIT(A) and Tribunal were never rebutted by the assessee and no perversity is alleged - no substantial question of law involved - Assessee's appeal dismissed.: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-391-HC-P-H-IT.pdf

CIT, Faridabad Vs Brij Pal Sharma (Dated: July 29, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 44AD - Assessee is a contractor - AO calls for information to complete assessment order - assessee fails to produce books of account - AO makes addition @ 8% of gross receipts on estimate basis - CIT(A) deletes additions on the ground that the assessee produces additional evidence and audited books which leave no ground for the Revenue to make additon - Tribunal upholds the CIT(A)'s order - held, no substantial question of law involved - Revenue's appeal dismissed.: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-390-HC-UTTRANCHAL-IT.pdf

Western Geco International Ltd Vs ACIT, Dehradun (Dated: July 24, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 10 (10CC) - employer paying tax on behalf of employees - exemption - Is employer entitled to exemption of tax paid?

Assessee pays tax on behalf of employees - claims exemption u/s 10 (10CC) - AO disallows the same - CIT(A) partly allows the assessee's appeal - Tribunal dismisses the assessee's appeal - Assessee's counsel argues that the Tribunal's order is not sustainable in view of its Special Bench decision allowing exemption to employer under Sec 10 (10CC) - held, issue remanded to the Tribunal to examine the Special Bench decision and decide the case on merit.: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-493-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ITO, Mumbai Vs Grover Vineyaros Ltd (Dated: March 05, 2009)

Income  tax – deemed dividend – Sec 2(22)(e) – assessee company is manufacturer of wines from French variety of wine grapes – receives advance from other company – AO finds a common shareholder in both the companies holding 10% shares and considers the loan amount as deemed dividend – CIT (A) deletes the addition – Held that assessee is not a shareholder of the other company and deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder following the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hotel Hill Top ( 2008-TIOL-235-HC-RAJ-IT ) and ITAT Mumbai (SB) in the case of Bhaumik Colour (P)Ltd 2008-TIOL-641-ITAT-MUM-SB .

Disallowance of sundry balances written off – AO disallowed the claim in absence of the details – CIT (A) did not consider the details furnished before him at all and disallowed the claim – Held, CIT (A) is directed to consider the evidence filed by assessee and adjudicate the issue afresh.: MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-492-ITAT-MAD-TM.pdf + house story.pdf

ACIT,Chennai Vs Shri T N Gopal (Dated: June 26, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 54F - assessee is co-owner with his brother in a residential house - sells some shares in order to construct additional floor on existing house - claims exemption for capital gains u/s 54 - AO disallows the exemption on the ground that the assessee has only constructed additional floor on his existing house property but the exemption u/s 54F is available only for purchase or construction of a new property - CIT(A) albeit allows re-opening of assessment order u/s 147 but allows exemption to the assessee - Tribunal Members differ on the final view - Third Member goes with the Judicial Member who had based his view on the 'binding precedent' of the jurisdictional High Court, holding that mere extension of existing property not to entitle assessee to benefit of exemption u/s 54F - Revenue's appeal allowed.: CHENNAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1199-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + ITC Story.pdf

M/s ITC Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: May 13, 2009)

Central Excise/Service Tax – Cenvat Credit - services undertaken like lawn mowing, garbage cleaning, maintenance of swimming pool, collection of household garbage, harvest cutting, weeding, etc. - When the appellant is under an obligation to maintain a colony, all the services received in maintaining such a colony would also be covered as input services : The scope of the definition of input service is very wide. It encompasses a variety of services which relate to not only manufacture of final products but also several activities relating to business. The use of the expression “as such” indicates that list of activities given therein are only illustrative and not exhaustive.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1192-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s U B Engineering Ltd Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: July 22, 2009)

ST - Sec 73 and Sec 76 - Assessee fails to pay tax and also files return with delays - Revenue imposes penalty u/s 76 - Assessee pleads that it has paid tax with interest even before the adjudication order was issued and invocation of penalty was not called for - held, since the tax with interest was paid by the assessee on his own, the assessee meets the requirement of Sec 73 and the Central Excise officer was not fair to issue show cause notice under such circumstances - If the issue of SCN itself is not proper, the imposition of penalty u/s 76 cannot be sustainable - Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1190-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Deep Chemical Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: June 12, 2009)

ST - C & F Service - Assessee is C&F cum re-packing agent for a chemical company, manufacturing common salt and soda ash - recovering, besides the charges for C & F Agency service, charges for storage and warehousing, cargo handling and packing charges - Revenue raises demand - Assessee argues that it provides only C & F Agency service and other services are only incidental to it - held, as long as the assessee separately charging the client for all these services, it is prima facie liable to tax on them - 20% of demand ordered as pre-deposit.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1198-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + Nicco Corpn STORY.pdf

M/s Nicco Corpn Ltd Vs CCE, Kolkata-III (Dated: April 6, 2009)

Central Excise – Goods cleared to ship builders against certificates indicating goods as ship stores for Indian Navy – Benefit of Notification 64/95-CE not available – Since goods are supplied against false certificates and are not intended for use as per certificates extended period invokable – DGCEI has all India jurisdiction and SCN issued by officials of DGCEI under Central Excise Act not beyond jurisdiction – CESTAT decision in Copier Force India case 2009-TIOL-75-CESTAT-MAD distinguished.: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1197-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s HTL Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: April 22, 2009)

Central Excise – valuation – inclusion of interest on advances – the original authority finalized the assessment without carefully considering the relevant case law in relation to addition of wage arrears in the assessable value and wrongly decided includibility of interest on advances without studying its includibility with reference to the settled law. There is also no meaningful discussion and finding on the includibility of interest on loan portion of capital employed by HTL received from DOT – matter remanded.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1196-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s SRK Products (Pvt) Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore-II (Dated: February 11, 2009)

Central Excise – Amount deposited under interim orders of Tribunal in a dispute to be refunded with interest from date of pre-deposit – Impugned order denying interest set aside – Rejection of refund claim of duty debited in PLA for non payment of service tax on carriage inwards upheld as there is no evidence of duty payment under protest.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1193-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE & CC, Nagpur Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd (Dated: June 2, 2009)

Cenvat credit on telephone service in respect of mobile phones provided to and used by assessees employees – no case of Revenue that burden cast on manufacturer to prove that phones were used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture or clearance of final products or in connection with business activity has not been discharged – Credit available - Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Commissioner V/s. Excel Crop Care Ltd. [ 2008-TIOL-568-HC-AHM-CX ] relied upon – Revenue appeal dismissed.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-1195-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Delhi Vs M/s Rajdhani Import (Dated: March 23, 2009)

Customs – Import of old and used monitors, CPUs and keyboards of different brands – Average value assigned to assorted variety of monitors, CPUs and keyboards by Chartered Engineer improper – No infirmity in Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding transaction value setting aside order of original authority.: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1194-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s FAL Industries Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Customs – EPCG – non-fulfillment of export obligation - In the absence of any statutory provision under Customs Act, 1962, or in Notification No. 160/92-Cus., interest can't be demanded.: CHENNAI CESTAT;