13th Finance Commission releases 'Discussion Papers' for public feedback

Industrial production recovers; logs 6.8% growth rate in July (See 'Mixed Buzz')

NELP VIII: Overwhelming response to auction of oil & gas blocks, says Deora

CJI to inaugurate National Seminar on 'Fighting Crimes related to Corruption' (See 'DDT' Column)

Implications of withdrawal of CBDT Instruction on turnkey power projects (See 'Special Column')

Railways all set to flag off non-stop 'Duronto' trains (See 'Mixed Buzz')

Doing Business 2010: Rwanda turns out to be top reformer (See 'Mixed Buzz')

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 11 sept.pdf

Government withdraws exemption to goods transport by Rail? ;

spl_column.pdf

Implications of withdrawal of CBDT Instruction on turnkey power projects;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0840.pdf

Industrial production recovers; logs 6.8% growth rate in July;

mbuzz0839.pdf

DGCA asks airlines not to hike tariff because of Jet crisis;

mbuzz0838.pdf

Railways all set to flag off non-stop 'Duronto' trains;

mbuzz0837.pdf

Doing Business 2010: Rwanda turns out to be top reformer;

2009-TIOL-486-HC-P-H-IT.pdf

Such Chain Chits Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, Panchkula (Dated: September 25, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 68 - Assessee company runs a chit fund - payments due to chit-holders are issued in name of one of company's Directors but the same is claimed as expenditure - AO makes additions u/s 68 - CIT(A) deletes but Tribunal goes with the AO - held, since the payments due in the name of chit holders were made made to itself, it cannot be allowed as expenditure and the AO rightly made additions - no infirmity in Tribunal's order - Assessee's appeal dismissed: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-485-HC-ALL-IT.pdf

CIT, Kanpur Vs Pursottam SA. Kanpur (Dated: August 28, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 80CCA, 80CCB - Assessee claims deductions for investment in NSS and UTI Magnum - AO disallows on the ground that the investments were not made out of income chargeable to tax - Assessee pleads the investments were made out of fund which was earlier loaned out - CIT(A) argues since the assessee fails to prove that the loan amount was given out of taxed income of the assessee, no benefits to be given - Tribunal allows the appeal - held, although there is a difference of opinion by HCs on this issue but it was decided by this court earlier that the deduction is admissible even if the investments are not necessarily made out of income chargeable to tax - Revenue's appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-559-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ITO, Mumbai Vs M/S P & R Automation Products Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 25, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 32 - Assessee is into exports - buys machineries and gives them to sister concern for manufacturing of goods for the assessee which in turn exports them - AO for partly disallowing depreciation as the sister concern also sells the goods locally - held, as long as it is established that the machineries were used by the sister concern to manufacture expors goods, it was utilised by the assessee for business and depreication cannot be denied - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-558-ITAT-BANG.pdf + kgl story.pdf

ITO, Bangalore Vs M/s Cepha Imaging Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 24, 2009)

Income tax - Indo-UK DTAA - Assessee is a 100% EoU - provides customised publishing related solutions - enters into a comprehensive agreement with a UK-based company for providing promotion of business and marketing of its services - agrees to make payments comprising of commission and reimbursement of expenses - TDS u/s 195 - AO holds that what the non-resident company has been providing to the exporter are technical and managerial consultancy services and any payments made for such services are taxable as fees for technical services as per Explanation 2 to Sec 9(1)(vii) and also under Article 13(4)(c) of the DTAA - AO takes the simplistic meaning of the word 'make available' enshrined in the DTAA and observes that since technical services are made available to the exporter, such payments are taxable in India - CIT(A) disagrees with the AO - held, the payments made by the Indian exporter to non-resident cannot be brought to tax because no technical knowledge, expertise, skill, knowhow or process consisting of the development and transfer of technical plan or technical design has been transferred to the assessee so that the assessee could use that knowledge, expertise and skill in the future - no TDS u/s 195 - Revenue's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1441-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Vadhera Builders Pvt Ltd Vs CST, New Delhi (Dated: July 2, 2009)

Service Tax – Availment of benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST for exclusion of value of materials sold without satisfying authorities with cogent evidence – No major case of material supply, and nature of service appears to be finishing service – Pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs ordered : DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1440-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Thirumala Enterprises Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: June 16, 2009)

Service Tax – Business Auxiliary Service vis-à-vis Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Services - Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - Prima facie, the activities carried out by the applicants are relating to mining of minerals which prima facie has been brought into the ambit of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007. The period in dispute in the present case is September 2005 to December 2006, that is, prior to 1.6.2007. Strong case made out by the appellants. Stay granted: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1439-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Karl Kubel Institute of Development Education Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Service Tax – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit – Mandap Keeper Services – the applicant provided halls for conducting training programmes which are neither official, social or business function and therefore prima facie case made out for waiver of pre-deposit: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1438-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Cellebrum.com Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CE, Chandigarh (Dated: July 17, 2009)

ST - Business Auxuliary Service - Assessee is an intermediary - receives messages from senders and transmits the same to the recipient by hiring cellular services - demand under BAS - assessee pleads for cenvat credit and proper classification of the service - held, the Govt has introduced another service, Business Support Service, which may be relevant in this case from 1.5.2006 - Pre-deposit of Rs 20 lakh ordered: DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1445-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Lanco storyy.pdf

M/s Lanco Industries Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST, Tirupathi (Dated: May 5, 2009)

Central Excise – Eligibility of benefit of Notification 6/02-CE, 3/04-CE & 6/06-CE for manufacture and clearance of ductile iron spun pipes for usage beyond first storage point and also as replacements – Prima facie strong case in favour of appellants – Pre-deposit of Rs. 84 crores waived and stay granted: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1444-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Sanchit Polymers Vs CCE & C, Daman (Dated: April 2, 2009)

Central Excise – Imported raw materials on which CENVAT credit was availed stored outside factory premises in neighbouring units due to space constraints – No malafide stand attributed to appellants – Goods not suitable for use as inputs in the other units – Confiscation of goods and penalty imposed on neighbouring units set aside – Technical breach of law for storage of raw materials outside factory without permission warrants nominal penalty – Penalty on individual set aside: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1443-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Metweld Industries Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: April 24, 2009)

Central Excise – Hot rolled stainless steel patta/patti 600 mm classifiable under Chapter 7219.30 - It is well settled law that the heading which specifically covers the product by name, is to be preferred over other general headings: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1442-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Padiyur Sarvodaya Sangh Vs CCE (Dated: April 2, 2009)

Central Excise – manufacture – the appellants, a certified unit of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission supplied Roving ends and Charkas to individual spinners for spinning Polyester Cotton Blended Yarn in hanks – the appellants are not the manufacturers of the goods in question as there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that they supervised the individual spinners: CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft09not009.pdf

Import Policy of Electrical Energy;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1446-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Arihant Story.pdf

CC (Import), Nhava Sheva Vs Arihant Metal & Alloy Indus (Dated: July 27, 2009)

Applying incorrect rate of duty is not a clerical error u/s 154 of Customs Act - Mere filing of an appeal against order of assessment without filing refund claim within the mandatory period is not proper – Refund time barred – CESTAT allows Revenue appeal : MUMBAI CESTAT;